beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. Appeal;
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the co-Plaintiff C of the first instance trial are the successors of the network D (Death on November 9, 2016, hereinafter “the deceased”).
B. The Deceased transferred KRW 28 million to the Defendant on April 11, 2016, to KRW 30 million, and around the 27th day of the same month, the Deceased returned KRW 30 million on August 1, 2016, KRW 3 million on the 111th day of the same month, KRW 5 million on the 30 million on the 30th day of the same month, KRW 6 million on September 2, 2016, and KRW 2 million on the 10th day of the same month.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 through 6 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The parties' assertion
A. In the Plaintiff’s primary assertion, the Deceased lent a total of KRW 76 million to the Defendant, and received KRW 28 million from the Defendant on or around May 6, 2018, and the Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 15 million from the Defendant and received KRW 30 million from the Defendant on or around May 6, 2018. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, who is the inheritor of the Deceased, the remaining amount of KRW 18 million (i.e., KRW 76 million - KRW 28 million - KRW 30 million) and delay damages.
Preliminaryly, the defendant is obligated to pay 1/2 of the settlement of accounts between the deceased and the defendant as the heir of the deceased.
B. The Defendant’s assertion is not the borrowed money but the partner’s money that the Defendant received from the Deceased.
The Defendant, while operating a restaurant with the deceased and his/her Dong business, was responsible for operating expenses, and the Defendant provided 12 passenger cars using restaurant publicity, business and facility cargo, and received KRW 30 million from the deceased as a deposit for lease on April 11, 2016 and returned KRW 28 million to the deceased from among the deposit for lease that the former lessee of the shop did not need to conduct his/her business until August 30, 2016. On August 1, 2016, the Defendant again transferred the amount transferred from the deceased to the deceased on or around August 1, 2016.