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 parties' assertion and judgment
A. On November 15, 201, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 15,000,000 and delay damages, as the Plaintiff lent KRW 15,00,00 to the Defendant on November 15, 201.
In this regard, the defendant did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff, and the above money was paid to the defendant as a deposit, so the plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted.
B. On November 201, 201, the fact that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant a check of KRW 15,000,000 at par value does not conflict between the parties.
However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the respective statements and arguments set forth in Gap evidence 7 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 3 (including branch numbers), the above facts of recognition and the evidence presented by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 15,00,000 to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any document on loans for consumption of KRW 15,00,00, including a loan certificate or receipt, nor did they have any time and interest, etc. premised on the above money lending have been set. Even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff was engaged in a private teaching institute business for a period of 30 years or longer, and was engaged in a business of acquiring and operating a savings bank. Even if the Defendant was the Plaintiff’s employee, it is difficult to accept the Plaintiff’s claim that the Plaintiff did not prepare any document regarding loans of KRW 15,00,000 and did not clearly state its maturity or interest. (ii) The Plaintiff did not specifically confirm the loan of KRW 15,00,000 after paying the above check to the Defendant.
In particular, around July 2012, the defendant retired from C Co., Ltd. (the company that the defendant served as the company that the plaintiff operated), and at the same time the plaintiff was at the time.