beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.
2...
Reasons
1. The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Judgment" as to the allegations added in the court of first instance, and thus, they are quoted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act
2. Additional determination
A. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant on December 18, 2012, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and delay damages.
B. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 2 and 4, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant on December 18, 2012, the fact that C wired the Plaintiff KRW 4 million on December 18, 2012, KRW 4 million on January 18, 2013, KRW 45 million on January 18, 2013, and KRW 4.5 million on February 13, 2013 is recognized.
However, in the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, the transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, and repayment. Thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement between the parties to the loan solely on the fact that such transfer was made. The party who asserts the loan bears the burden of proving that the loan was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In light of the fact that the Plaintiff failed to submit materials proving the existence of the maturity or interest agreement, which are the essential elements of the loan, or corresponding loan certificates, (i) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is merely a conversation between the Plaintiff and C, and it is difficult to deem that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant and agreed on the maturity or interest agreement, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant.
Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.
3. The plaintiff's conclusion is that of this case.