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 Plaintiff asserts that, between February 7, 2017 and February 28, 2017, a sum of KRW 22,013,913 was leased to the Defendant several times, the Defendant should return the said loan and the damages for delay.
In this regard, the plaintiff and the defendant asserted that they were in the past relations and that they were lent by the plaintiff was merely a donation made by the plaintiff for fraud of the defendant's sense, and they asserted that the plaintiff's claim is groundless.
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent money to the parties even if there was no dispute as to the fact that the money was given and received between the parties, has the burden of proof as to the fact of lending to the Plaintiff.
(Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972; 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014)
Based on the above legal doctrine, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff paid the amount as alleged by the Plaintiff to the Defendant several times, but in addition to the overall purport of the arguments in the video as stated in the evidence Nos. 6 and 7, the following circumstances are satisfied, namely, ① neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant prepared a disposal document related to the lending of money, such as a loan certificate, a letter of commitment, and a cash custody certificate, nor any other evidence exists to acknowledge this differently. ② The Plaintiff was in a relationship with the Defendant from May 2016 to March 2017, ② there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had urged the Defendant to repay the loan to the Defendant before the instant lawsuit was filed, and ③ there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff had lent the money as alleged by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. In light of the above facts and the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.