Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed in entirety.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is a substantial representative of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) that is engaged in the manufacture, etc. of Aluminium, and Defendant C is the representative director of the Defendant Co., Ltd. who is a company engaged in the business of manufacturing bicycles.
B. E was registered as the representative director of Defendant C’s child from October 20, 2015 to May 12, 2017.
C. On May 10, 2016, from the Plaintiff’s account in the name of F, the KRW 22 million was remitted to the account in the name of E, which was the representative director of the Defendant Company, at the time.
(hereinafter “instant remittance”). D.
D filed a complaint with the Busan District Prosecutors' Office to the effect that "Defendant C and E acquired the said money, etc.," but an investigative agency was not subject to a disposition of non-prosecution by suspicion, and D applied for adjudication, but the application for adjudication was also dismissed.
(Seoul High Court 2018 seconds2860). [Grounds for recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 5, the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Determination as to the claim
A. Through the Plaintiff’s remittance of the instant assertion, the Plaintiff lent KRW 22 million to the Defendant Company.
Therefore, Defendant Company is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 22 million and delay damages therefor. If the said KRW 22 million transferred by the Plaintiff is not a loan to the Defendant Company, the Plaintiff loaned the said money to Defendant C. Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 22 million and delay damages therefrom.
B. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the plaintiff.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). Facts acknowledged earlier, Gap’s evidence 6, 7, and 10 (including serial numbers), and Eul’s evidence 3 and 3.