beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) around November 9, 2015, the Plaintiff transferred the account of KRW 7 million to the Defendant; and (b) paid KRW 3 million in cash on the following day; and (c) lent KRW 10 million in total.
On December 31, 2015, the Defendant paid only KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on December 31, 2015, but did not repay the remaining loan. Therefore, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remaining loan amounting to KRW 8 million and the delayed payment damages.
The plaintiff, at the first date for pleading of the court, did not reduce the purport of the claim.
2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 7 million to the defendant on November 9, 2015 is recognized.
However, since the burden of proving that the said money was paid as a loan still exists to the person who asserts it, even if the evidence submitted by the plaintiff was collected, it is insufficient to recognize that the loan agreement was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant, as argued by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire argument in the statement Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff asserted that ① the plaintiff did not clearly state the existence of a specific period of payment or interest agreement even though he did not lend a considerable amount of KRW 10 million, and that he did not submit any loan certificate, etc. ② the plaintiff performed the stone construction work for the building repair work, and the defendant alleged that he was the representative of the above Corporation at the time of the plaintiff's assertion that he was the representative of the above Corporation. ③ The plaintiff paid the defendant KRW 7 million by account transfer, KRW 3 million in cash, and KRW 1.3 million to the defendant's employees D by account transfer. The plaintiff asserted that the calculation itself does not fit.