1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

1. On June 2010, the Plaintiff entered into a timber transport contract with the Defendant and received timber from the Defendant, and received transport expenses from the Defendant for the portion transported by the Plaintiff. However, from May 2012, the Defendant asserted that from around 2012, the Defendant failed to pay transport expenses of KRW 27,400,000 due to delayed payment of transport expenses, and sought payment of KRW 27,40,000 for unpaid cargo transport expenses.

The plaintiff received timber from the defendant from June 2010 and received transportation expenses after transporting it. However, there is no dispute between the parties. However, it is difficult to recognize that the plaintiff did not receive transportation expenses equivalent to KRW 27,400,00 even though the plaintiff made transportation to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff did not receive transportation expenses equivalent to KRW 27,40,000, even though the plaintiff made transportation to the defendant.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim for this part is without merit.

2. Claim for return of the loan or provisional payment; and

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) from March 2013 to July 2014, 2014, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 243,200,000 to the Defendant as a loan and freight freight. Of these, the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant as a freight freight is KRW 112,00,000.

Therefore, since the remaining 130,000,000 won is leased to the defendant, the defendant is obligated to repay the above loan to the plaintiff.

(2) The Defendant asserts that the conjunctive claim is not a loan of KRW 130,000,000 remitted from the Plaintiff, but a prior payment was made. The Defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 130,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff.

B. Even if there is no dispute between the parties to the judgment on the claim for a loan, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof against the Plaintiff who asserts that the loan was lent.

Supreme Court Decision 200