beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Defendant, who was married with the Plaintiff, was the latter to enter into a marriage with D, and requested the Plaintiff to lend money as a marriage fund, etc. The Plaintiff lent KRW 13,000,000 to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 13,000,000 and the damages for delay.
B. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that a party gave and received money between the parties to the judgment, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to the fact of lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 3,000,000, totaling KRW 13,000,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant, as of November 21, 2016, and KRW 10,000,000 as of February 9, 2017, is not a dispute between the parties, but as alleged by the Plaintiff, as to whether or not the Plaintiff remitted the money at the request of the Defendant that the Plaintiff lent money, the statement under subparagraph 3 alone is insufficient to acknowledge it, and there is no other evidence
Therefore, it is difficult to view that the Defendant entered into a monetary loan contract as alleged by the Plaintiff, so the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence 2-2 and Eul evidence 1-2, as a whole, D, which promised to marry with the defendant around February 16, 2017, demanded the defendant to repay the above KRW 13,00,000 on behalf of the defendant, and the defendant sent text messages to the plaintiff around March 2, 2017 to the effect that the defendant would pay KRW 3,00,000 to the plaintiff around March 2, 2017. According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to deem that the party to the monetary loan contract asserted by the plaintiff is not the defendant, and even if the defendant expressed to the plaintiff that he would pay part of the amount of D's loan.