beta
Text
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
Reasons
1. Although there is no dispute over the fact that an exchange of money between the parties to the relevant legal doctrine is made, when the Plaintiff claims the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, while the Defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it is a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). It cannot be readily concluded that the cause of receiving money is a donation immediately on the ground that two persons exchanging the money have a relationship of interest. Whether the cause is a loan for consumption or a donation should be determined by taking into account the developments leading up to exchanging the money, the source, amount, and
2. According to Gap evidence No. 1’s judgment on the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff’s bank account is recognized as KRW 5,00,000 on April 28, 2017, KRW 10,000 on May 28, 2017, KRW 100,000 on June 1, 2017, KRW 150,000 on June 29, 2017, KRW 1,000 on July 20, 2017, KRW 00 on July 31, 2017, KRW 7,500,000 on July 31, 200, KRW 1,000 on August 1, 200, KRW 00 on KRW 1,00 on August 23, 2017, KRW 00 on 10,00 on 10,00 on 10,010 on 2017.
Furthermore, we examine whether the reason for giving and receiving each money can be recognized as lending.
A. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleadings as to the judgment of KRW 100,00,00 on May 28, 2017, and KRW 150,000 on June 29, 2017, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) had a relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant at least before and after the time of lending each money from April 5, 2017 to the time of temporary lending; and (b) the Plaintiff sent text messages to the Defendant on May 28, 2017 to the effect that “the Plaintiff deposited KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant” was difficult to view that the Plaintiff lent each of the above money to the Defendant; and (c) in light of the relationship with the Plaintiff and the Defendant and the amount received, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent each of the above money to the Defendant.
B. The above A.
subsection (b).