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 alleged that the Plaintiff leased KRW 3,300,00 to the Defendant from May 18, 2014 to June 21, 2014. As to this, the Defendant asserted that, around May 2014, the Plaintiff purchased a good wave and mathy from the Defendant’s husband in the form of lump-sum sale (referring to the sale of dry field, so-called “spathing period”, and the sale in the form of area or quantity unit in the cultivated condition before the producer harvests, and paid the said money to the Defendant as the down payment, but the said money was reduced by giving up the contract, and thus confiscated as penalty.
Judgment
Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties received money, the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made has the burden of proof when the defendant asserts that the lending was made.
(Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015, and Supreme Court Decision 72Da2221 Decided December 12, 1972). There is no dispute between the parties to a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on May 18, 2014, KRW 500,000,000 on May 24, 2014, KRW 100,000 on May 28, 2014, KRW 80,000 on June 15, 2014, KRW 50,000 on June 21, 2014, and KRW 33,00,00,00 to each of the parties.
However, in light of the fact that there was no objective data supporting the fact of lending such as the loan certificate or the statement of interest payment in this case, and the plaintiff actually entered into a bilateral sales contract with C (State), it is insufficient to acknowledge the fact of lending only with the evidence No. 4 (Evidence) that D had offered that 3.3 million won was lent from the plaintiff to the plaintiff's husband and did not receive money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.
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 in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is without merit.