beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Defendant is the number of operators and operators of the “D” restaurant in Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and the Plaintiff is a member of the Defendant’s pande club since around 2009.
B. On May 6, 2010, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 225 million to the Defendant by account transfer, etc. by 15 times until May 2, 2012, as shown in attached Table 1, including the transfer of KRW 30 million to the Defendant.
C. The defendant received from the plaintiff
The part of the money stated in the subsection was used as the food service expenses for the restaurant in and out of the country.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2 (including each number, hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence 1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 225 million and damages for delay since the defendant lent the loan to the defendant by making use of the test cost of the restaurant in this case. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amounting to KRW 225 million and the damages for delay.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 225 million is not a loan, but a donation made by the plaintiff to the defendant.
B. Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties provided and received money, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made has the burden of proving that the lending was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). 2) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant a sum of KRW 225 million from May 6, 2010 to May 2, 2012, and the Defendant used part of the said money as expenses for internal and external funeral services for the restaurant of this case, as seen earlier. According to the evidence No. 1-2, the Defendant’s statement as indicated in the evidence No. 1-2, the attached Table 2, from April 25, 2012 to June 14, 2017, to the Plaintiff.