beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff asserted on June 25, 2009 lent KRW 35,762,00 to the Defendant, but received reimbursement of KRW 25 million on March 31, 2010.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the balance of KRW 10,762,00 (=35,762,000 - 25 million) and damages for delay.
(A) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of the loan was KRW 40 million or KRW 38,762,00,000 was not modified. 2. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 35,762,00 to the Defendant’s deposit account on June 25, 2009.
However, in light of the following circumstances that can be seen by adding up the purport of the entire pleadings to each statement in Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 12 (including those with serial numbers), the above remittance alone is insufficient to recognize the above money as a loan to the defendant by the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact of lending the plaintiff's assertion, and the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.
(1) In cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the remittance can be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption or repayment. Therefore, the fact that the remittance was made cannot be readily concluded as a loan, and the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the money was lent.
However, the plaintiff is not fully able to submit objective evidentiary documents, such as a loan certificate or cash storage certificate, which proves that the plaintiff's assertion was lent, and there is no clear argument as to the repayment period or interest agreement included in the loan for consumption.
② The Defendant submitted relevant evidentiary materials to the effect that the above KRW 35,762,00, which was owned by the Plaintiff, was paid to the Plaintiff for the work of constructing a new commercial building on land C and constructing a road. The above KRW 25 million was rather paid to the Plaintiff in the name of the Defendant’s spouse D.