beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
The plaintiff's assertion asserts that on February 14, 2002, the plaintiff lent the amount of USD 13,400,000 to the defendant, which is equivalent to USD 10,000.
The defendant's assertion that the above money received from the plaintiff is part of KRW 200 million that female C left to the plaintiff, and Eul's two children are going to study in the South Africa in the South Africa, and the defendant sent USD 1,000 per month to the South Africa for ten months, and they are not borrowed from the plaintiff.
Judgment
Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchanged money, when the defendant contestss the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proving that the lending was made.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 201). According to the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted USD 10,00 to the Defendant on February 14,
However, since the defendant is dissatisfied with the cause of receiving the above money, the plaintiff must prove that the cause of paying the above money is based on the loan for consumption.
However, in full view of the following facts: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare objective documents, such as a loan certificate; (b) there is no evidence that the Plaintiff requested repayment for a considerable period of time after the Plaintiff remitted the above money to the Defendant; and (c) the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff remitted part of KRW 200 million deposited by the Plaintiff for Female C, which was transferred to the Defendant in lieu of C; and (b) the Plaintiff also recognized that the Plaintiff had a debt equivalent to KRW 200 million against C, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the said money that the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant is a loan under a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant for consumption; and
Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit.
The first instance court.