beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the court of first instance.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserts that, from September 23, 2015 to September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 16,450,000 to Co-Defendant B, Co-Defendant B of the first instance trial, and that, the Defendant provided that, “I would be liable for payment if I would lend additional money to B as the husband and wife in fact,” and that, from November 25, 2015 to August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff lent KRW 174,700,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan”). Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that I would be liable to pay the said loan to the Plaintiff.
However, in light of the circumstances where the Plaintiff was in contact with the Defendant at the time of the above lending, or there was no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff was in trust between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, i.e., beliefing the Defendant’s self-reliance and intent to repay the loan of this case, and that the Defendant consistently asserted that the Plaintiff was a person who does not have any means to do so from the Plaintiff in the lawsuit of this case, and the Plaintiff was unaware of the Defendant’s telephone number at the time of the filing of the lawsuit of this case, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the loan of this case to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove that the Defendant was responsible for and liable for the repayment of the loan of this case to the Plaintiff. Thus,
B. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant and B have a mutual right of representation as a de facto marital couple, and that the Plaintiff borrowed the instant loan from the Plaintiff as a matter of daily living, not as a business purpose, but as a matter of daily living. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiff in accordance with the principle of daily living rights.
However, the loan of this case B is merely stated in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4.