beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On July 21, 2015, the court of first instance rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on July 21, 2015, and served a written judgment by means of service by public notice, after serving a copy of the complaint against the Defendant, notification of the date for pleading, etc. on the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant could not be able to comply with the peremptory period for reasons for not being able to be able to be able to be able to be held liable due to the Defendant’s failure to know the service of the judgment without negligence. On March 29, 2016, the Defendant applied for perusal to the court of first instance for a trial and received the original copy of the judgment, etc., and was sentenced to the first instance judgment after which the judgment was rendered. Moreover, the Defendant filed the instant subsequent appeal on March 30, 2016, which was 14 days or less.
2. Determination as to the cause of action
A. On October 18, 2013, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Plaintiff promised to pay the Defendant the due date set as of January 18, 2014 and receive interest on the fourth installment per month; and (b) lent KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff; (c) the Defendant is liable to pay the said loans and damages for delay.
B. 1) Determination 1) Any person who claims reimbursement of a specific amount remitted to the other party by alleging that it is a loan is not only the fact that the amount was remitted, but also the fact that it was a loan under a monetary loan contract. Such principle of burden of proof is not different even if the other party to whom the money was received was not clearly asserted or did not prove that it was not clearly asserted as to the circumstances in which the money was delivered or the point in which the money was used. 2) According to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the account under the Defendant’s name on October 18, 2013. However, it is insufficient to recognize that the above amount was a loan under a monetary loan contract, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, the following facts recognized by the records of this case are the Plaintiff.