beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff asserts that he/she loaned a total of KRW 44,100,000 to the Defendant from August 13, 2014 to March 12, 2018.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the money alleged by the plaintiff is donated to the defendant in a de facto marital relationship with the plaintiff, so the plaintiff's claim is groundless.
B. Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute between the parties or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, it is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted a total of KRW 40,100,000 to the Defendant from August 13, 2014 to March 12, 2018, as shown in the attached Table. 2) Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that the Defendant lent money between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made has the burden of proof as to the fact of lending when the Defendant contests against the Defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). Since the Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s assertion of lending, the burden of proof as to the existence of an agreement for lending exists under the Plaintiff’s assertion.
However, the plaintiff only proves the remittance of the above money, and fails to prove that the remittance of the above money is based on the lending agreement. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
Rather, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6, the Plaintiff and the Defendant have attended from around 2001, and there was no evidence to deem that there was no dispute between the parties, or that there was no evidence suggesting that the Plaintiff had urged the Defendant to return money prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case, even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant were living together with the Defendant at the time of remitting each of the above money for which the Plaintiff sought payment to the Defendant.