beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties’ assertion asserts that the Defendant loaned KRW 17 million to the Plaintiff on the ground that there is a lack of money in order to operate a restaurant business in the Seocho-gu Seoul Special Metropolitan City, Changwon-si C, and that the Plaintiff lent money.
In regard to this, the defendant argued that, although the loan of KRW 7 million out of the above money that the plaintiff remitted to the defendant is sufficient to borrow from the plaintiff, it is not obligated to return it as investment money for restaurant business. On July 12, 2017, the plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 8.5 million between the plaintiff and the plaintiff until December 30, 2017. The defendant asserted that there is no money to be paid if it offsets the above contract bond against the loan bond of KRW 7 million with the above contract bond of the plaintiff.
2. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent money between the parties to the judgment on the cause of the claim, even though there is no dispute as to the fact that the said money was given and received, has the burden of proof as to the fact of the lending.
(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.). In addition, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant KRW 17 million on March 11, 2016, KRW 5 million on March 15, 2016, KRW 17 million on August 16, 2016, and KRW 17 million on August 16, 2016, the Defendant was a person who was under dispute between the parties and was remitted by the Plaintiff.
However, the remaining 10 million won is not borrowed but paid as investment money. It is argued that the following circumstances, which the plaintiff, D, and the defendant prepared a business plan for restaurant business, and stated D3 million won, 30 million won, 30 million won, 10 million won, and 10 million won in the financing plan column, and D and the related litigation between D and the plaintiff (Tgu District Court 2017Gadan12571) are also 10 million won in the restaurant business of the plaintiff.