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 reasoning of this case is as follows, except for the addition of '2. Additional Judgment' as to the plaintiff's assertion or the newly presented argument that is emphasized by this court, the court of first instance cites it as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
2. Additional determination
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The amount that the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff from February 2013 to August 2013 is the interest on the amount that the Plaintiff loaned to the Defendant, and the Defendant proposed to pay to the Plaintiff by setting the amount on his own. 2) Since the Plaintiff had an economic surplus, there was no need to request the Defendant to pay the amount of the loan, but there was no need to request the Defendant to pay the loan in particular, but there was no time to pay the loan from the second half of 2013, and therefore there was no time to pay
3) The Defendant needs to borrow money from the Plaintiff for the return of business funds and the payment of taxes. 4) The Defendant sent KRW 6,400,000 that the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff on July 15, 2013 and KRW 1,250,000 that was remitted on July 24, 2013 to the Plaintiff for the purpose of borrowing any more money from the Plaintiff.
5) The amount that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant is KRW 332,236,00,00, which is larger than the amount that the Defendant could have earned through a lawsuit claiming the return of forced inheritance. As such, there was a sufficient reason for the Defendant to borrow the above amount. (B) Even if there was no dispute as to the fact that the Plaintiff gave and received the money between the parties, the Defendant bears the burden of proof as to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent the money when the Defendant
(Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.) homicide, and Party A’s 3 through 6 evidence submitted by the Plaintiff at the trial of the Party (which has a serial number).