beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.
2. The plaintiff's claim as to the above cancellation part is dismissed.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The deceased C (hereinafter “the deceased”) is bound by the operation of Section E in Seocheon-gu, Seocheon-si. The Defendant is a decedent of the deceased, and the Plaintiff is a person who has maintained his/her friendship with the deceased.
B. From April 27, 2009 to November 13, 2015, the Plaintiff wired KRW 150,156,000 in total to the account in the name of the Deceased for six years. During the same period, the Deceased wired KRW 81,65,00 to the Plaintiff.
C. On October 12, 2015, the Deceased donated real estate listed in the attached list (hereinafter “instant building”) to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant donation contract”) and completed the registration of transfer of ownership on October 29, 2015 by the Incheon District Court No. 148153.
At the time of the donation contract of this case, the Deceased did not have any property except for the building of this case.
E. The Deceased died on December 10, 2015, and the deceased’s heir is the spouse F, children G, H, H, the Defendant, I, and J.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5, and the fact-finding inquiry results to the Minister of Court Administration of this Court, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount equivalent to KRW 150,156,00, transferred to the Deceased was all loans, and sought revocation of the instant donation contract against the Defendant who donated the instant building from the Deceased, and sought payment of KRW 68,491,000, excluding KRW 81,65,000, among the above loans, remitted to the Deceased.
B. However, as to whether the Plaintiff transferred the money to the Deceased in full, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff had a loan claim equivalent to KRW 68,491,00 at present, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, the following circumstances are comprehensively taken account of the witness M’s testimony in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, 3-5, and 7.