beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, it is accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of
However, the following judgments are added to the plaintiff's repeated argument.
2. Determination of the attached articles
A. The plaintiff asserts in the trial as follows.
① The Defendant, either solely or jointly with C, borrowed KRW 770 million from the Plaintiff the deposit for the lease on apartment.
② C was in custody of the passbook in the name of the Plaintiff, but the Defendant forced C to act on behalf of the Plaintiff, and allowed C to lend KRW 250 million to the Defendant. The Defendant received the above money from the passbook in the name of C in his custody and used it as a stock purchase fund.
③ Under the condition that the Plaintiff would use the Defendant’s educational expenses for children, the Defendant, despite being aware of the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 133,770,000 to the Defendant, used the said money as a share purchase fund.
④ Through the “Written Answer” (No. 1-2) sent to the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to repay the portion of the said money that was not repaid to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of money stated in the claim as compensation for damages arising from a tort, as the restoration to original state following the return of the loan or cancellation of the donation contract.
B. However, the above evidence is insufficient to acknowledge the above facts (i.e., from 3 to 16) asserted by the plaintiff in addition to the statements in Gap evidence 13 to 16, which the plaintiff submitted in the trial. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
In addition, the "Written Answer" that the defendant sent to the plaintiff reflects the fact that the defendant used the plaintiff's funds for stock investment, and the defendant wants to repay the debt amount of the plaintiff's assertion, but in reality, he/she has adjusted the debt amount and made an investment in the defendant.