beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
The plaintiff's assertion on the cause of claim argues that on May 17, 2005, the plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,000 to the defendant by means of remitting it to the bank account.
Judgment
Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money has been received by the parties, the cause that the plaintiff received it is a loan for consumption, and the defendant is liable to prove that it was received by the loan for consumption if it is disputed.
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). In light of the above legal principle, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 40,000 to the Defendant on May 17, 2005 is not a dispute between the parties.
However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff was a loan of KRW 40,000,000, which was remitted to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit.
① The Plaintiff, by September 10, 200, lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 24,000,000, and KRW 10,000,000 on May 20, 200, and did not receive a certificate of borrowing from the Defendant, alleging that the Plaintiff received a certificate of borrowing written by the Defendant, but did not receive a certificate of borrowing from the Defendant, while remitting a total of KRW 40,00,000 to the Defendant.
② On November 18, 2004, the Plaintiff completed a provisional registration of the right to claim ownership transfer on the real estate owned by the Defendant (C/C 103 Dong 401, Dong Young-si) in order to secure a loan claim against the Defendant. However, even though the Plaintiff did not receive the above KRW 40,00,000 claimed as a loan, the said provisional registration was cancelled on November 6, 2006.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.