1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 158,043,00 and KRW 100,000 among them, from June 25, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

1. Determination as to the claim for KRW 280,0640,000 and damages for delay

A. From March 27, 2008 to December 6, 2010, the Plaintiff paid the Defendant the amount corresponding to the pertinent date by account transfer or cash payment in the table Nos. 1, 2, 7, and 50 attached hereto. The aggregate amount is without dispute between the parties or recognized by the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6.

B. The gist of the parties’ assertion (i.e., the plaintiff defendant) made a false statement that the plaintiff would build a Dogwon belonging to the C school council without the intention to build the Dogwon belonging to the C school council, and borrowed the above KRW 28,064,00 from the plaintiff as the cost of construction.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above money and the damages for delay due to the repayment of the loan in preliminary case as compensation for damages caused by deception.

Luxembourg The Defendant received the said money from the Plaintiff as an individual intent to build the Dogwon regardless of the Defendant Cridge, and is also to contribute the said money to the Plaintiff as a contribution with the knowledge of it.

C. (1) Even if there is no dispute as to the existence of a monetary loan agreement between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan was lent is subject to the burden of proof against the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan was lent.

(대법원 1972. 12. 12. 선고 72다221 판결, 대법원 2014. 7. 10. 선고 2014다26187 판결, 대법원 2014. 7. 10. 선고 2014다26187 판결 등 참조). ㈎ 이 사건의 경우, 차용증의 처분문서 등 원고와 피고 사이에 위 2억 8,064만 원(이하 편의상 ‘이 사건 기도원 관련 금원’이라고 지칭한다)에 관한 금전소비대차계약이 체결되었음을 인정할 직접적인 증거는 존재하지 아니하므로, 원고가 금전소비대차계약이 체결되었다는 근거로서...