beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
purport, purport, and.
Reasons
1. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted the total sum of KRW 50 million on September 30, 2009 and KRW 50 million on November 23, 2009 to Defendant B’s account does not conflict between the parties.
B. Upon receipt of a request from Defendant B to lend the operating funds of Defendant C, the husband of Defendant C, to the Defendants, and to lend KRW 50 million to the Defendants without setting the interest and due date, and as above, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff. However, the Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff was jointly and severally liable to pay the loan amount of KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff, while the Defendants asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff for the joint investment of the forest land purchase funds (Scheon-si E) that the Plaintiff intended to purchase and develop.
C. In the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant even if there is no dispute as to the existence of the number of money between the parties, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving the lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). As seen earlier, the Plaintiff wired KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant B. Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff’s husband F by December 31, 2013. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s statement Nos. 2, 6, 7, 8, and 10 (excluding the part under the Plaintiff’s name among the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 6) and the witness testimony of the first instance court, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant’s husband F by December 31, 2013 is insufficient to acknowledge that there is a lack of evidence to acknowledge the transfer of money to the Defendant’s account.
2. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion.