beta
Text
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the loan amount of KRW 20 million and damages for delay on the ground that the plaintiff lent the loan amount of KRW 20 million to the defendant upon the non-party's request by the defendant's spouse, to the non-party C to lend the loan amount of KRW 20 million.
The defendant denies the plaintiff's assertion that he received investment of KRW 200 million from those including the plaintiff, and did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff in order to operate the D carpet in Incheon Cheongbu District.
B. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, has the burden of proving that the loan was lent to the plaintiff.
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). In light of the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the Defendant’s bank account on July 10, 2014.
However, in light of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in light of the facts without any dispute between the parties, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through Eul evidence No. 8, and the purport of the entire pleadings, the plaintiff was recommended by the defendant's husband C to make an investment of KRW 20 million in order for the defendant to run his/her business in Cheongra zone at the end of June, 2014, and the defendant sent a letter of urging the plaintiff who was aware of ordinary as of July 2, 2007 to make an investment, and since long time when the plaintiff received the said investment recommendation and remitted money to the defendant, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the said money was paid to the defendant under a monetary loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, and it is otherwise recognized.