beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
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 he lent 20 million won to the defendant with business funds. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he received the above money as a donation from the plaintiff who is a Siberter as a cost of living.
If the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 20 million to the Defendant on March 28, 201, and the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 20 million between the Plaintiff’s Plaintiff’s ASEAN and the Defendant, the former District Court’s Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Branch Office 520 (Counterclaim), etc. on March 24, 2016, it is confirmed that “C and the Defendant are divorced upon a counterclaim. As to division of property, C and the Defendant confirm that positive and negative property belongs to each other’s name: Provided, That the loans (the first instance judgment) pending between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are irrelevant to the division of property.”
However, it cannot be readily concluded that the Defendant borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Defendant adjusted the content of excluding KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff subject to division of property, and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the money paid to the Defendant is a loan.
Rather, considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 10 as a whole, C and the Defendant, upon completion of the marriage report on July 2, 2009 and the marriage life on July 2, 2009, had been married regularly from around December 3, 201 to one of them during that period. As alleged by the Defendant, the possibility that the Plaintiff paid KRW 20 million to the Defendant at the cost of living cannot be ruled out.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, and it is revoked by the defendant's appeal and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.