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. On November 3, 201, the Plaintiff, which caused the Plaintiff’s claim, lent a total of KRW 5 million to the Defendant by lending KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant, KRW 2,000 to repay within several days on November 4, 201, KRW 3 million to repay immediately on August 27, 201, KRW 300,000,000,000 to immediately repay on September 201, and KRW 300,000,000,000 to lend to the Defendant.
However, on May 27, 2013, the Plaintiff received only one million won out of the above loans from the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of the loans 8.3 million won (9.3 million won - one million won) and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. On November 3, 2011, 200,000 won loan claim 1), even if there is no dispute between the parties to the relevant legal doctrine, it is recognized that, while the Plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving the money is a loan for consumption, the Plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that it is a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972) if the Defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Nov. 12, 1972). 2) According to each of the evidence No. 1 and No. 4, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 5 million from the Defendant’s account from November 3, 2011 to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “instant money”), C prepared a confirmation confirming that “the instant money is paid in advance to the Plaintiff for two months in the name of the Defendant.”
However, in light of the following circumstances that can be recognized by the purport of the statement Nos. 2 and 4 and the entire pleadings, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of paying the instant money, and (ii) any document that directly recognizes the instant money as a loan, such as a loan certificate, is not submitted, and (iii) C prepared a written confirmation to the effect that “the instant money was lent to the Plaintiff through the Defendant’s account.”