beta
Text
1. The part against the plaintiff falling under the following order of payment among the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked:
The defendant.
Reasons
1. There is no dispute between the parties to the basic facts, or comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff transferred KRW 8,00,000 to the defendant's deposit account in the name of the defendant who operated the beauty room for a long time, and Category C is the defendant's husband, ② the plaintiff transferred KRW 2,00,000 on December 15, 2009 to the defendant's deposit account in the name of the defendant, and KRW 4,80,000,000 on December 16, 209 to the defendant's deposit account in the name of the defendant on December 16, 209; ③ the defendant was aware of the above KRW 8,00,000,000 transferred from the plaintiff on December 17, 209 to the Incheon District Court's loan account in the name of the defendant on December 17, 2009>
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant lent a total of KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”) and sought payment of the said money against the Defendant.
The defendant asserts that he borrowed the above money from the plaintiff, who is his husband, and that the defendant did not have a duty to pay the above money to the plaintiff, since he renounced inheritance after the death of C.
3. In full view of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to deem the borrower who borrowed KRW 30,00,00 from the Plaintiff as the Defendant, and contrary thereto, it is difficult to believe that the result of the first instance court’s examination of the Defendant as part of the Defendant is contrary thereto, taking into account the following circumstances acknowledged by the following circumstances, taking into account: (a) there is no dispute between the parties; and (b) there is no evidence and evidence set forth above; and (c) the content of the order to submit financial transaction information
(1) From January 15, 2010 to October 18, 2010, 300,000 won as interest for police officers among almost every month, and C's managed by the defendant or the defendant.