beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion was lent KRW 52,531,500 to the defendant as shown in the attached Table, and received KRW 5,000,000 from the defendant.
In addition, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 80,920,00 to C who is the defendant's will to assume the responsibility.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120,051,00 and damages for delay, as sought by the Plaintiff, among the total sum of KRW 128,451,50 (= KRW 52,531,50, KRW 500 - KRW 80,920,000).
2. Determination
A. In full view of the evidence Nos. 1, 4, 9, 18, 19, 22, 23 and 7 of the attached Table Nos. 1, 4, 9, 18, 19, 22, and 23 of the attached Table No. 7, the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant or D’s account at the relevant time. However, in light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff’s ground for the loan is the clothes value, the Defendant’s school membership fee, the cosmetic value, and the hospital expenses; and (b) the Plaintiff and the Defendant were related with the above item, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the lending; and (c) the Plaintiff’s allegation in this part is not acceptable; (d) according to the evidence as stated in the attached Table Nos 2, 7, and 12 of the attached Table No. 2, the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant.
However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to the effect that “if C does not perform its obligation newly assumed to the Plaintiff by subrogation of the Plaintiff, the Defendant would have paid it to the Plaintiff,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable.
3. The plaintiff 3, 5, 6, 16, 17 of the attached table Nos. 3, 5, 6, 16, and 17 asserts that the defendant was paid the above money to the defendant.
In principle, the burden of proof is applicable.