beta
Text
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal are the judgment of the first instance.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. From June 30, 2008 to April 25, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 7,100,000 in cash, and KRW 14,700,00 in total, and KRW 21,80,000 to the Defendant through the Defendant’s account, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the amount.
B. Defendant 1) did not borrow KRW 21,800,000 from the Plaintiff.
Money transferred to C by the Plaintiff to the account was in de facto marital relationship with the Defendant.
D is merely received through C's account due to bad credit standing, etc., and there is no relation with the Defendant, and there is no fact that D has received KRW 7,100,000 in cash.
2) Even if the Defendant borrowed KRW 21,800,000 from the Plaintiff, the statute of limitations has expired for the amount loaned before November 13, 2018.
2. Determination
A. In a lawsuit seeking the return of a loan, the burden of proof of the fact of a contract for monetary consumption and lending is asserted against the Plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da12280, Jun. 14, 2013). (b) In full view of the following circumstances recognized by the overall purport of the statement of evidence No. 2013, Jun. 14, 2013; and the witness C’s testimony and alteration in writing by the witness of this court, it is insufficient to acknowledge that each statement of evidence No. 1 and No. 10 submitted by the Plaintiff was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that each statement of evidence No. 1 and No. 10 was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (where the Plaintiff’s claim is without merit, there is no objective document to acknowledge the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’
② The fact that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant the sum of KRW 21,800,000, which was not the Defendant, but did not prepare a loan certificate, and did not specify the maturity or interest, etc. is an ordinary pecuniary transaction practice.
③ The Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 3,00,000 as a check on June 30, 2008, and the Plaintiff’s withdrawal on June 30, 2009.