1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the court of first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

In the trial scope of this court, the plaintiff filed a claim for damages against the defendant and the co-defendant C of the first instance court for active damages of KRW 15,000,000 (the claim) and the defendant for damages of KRW 5,000 (the claim of KRW 2) and the loan of KRW 33,90,000 (the claim of KRW 33,90,000). The court of first instance dismissed all of the plaintiff's claim for damages due to the tort against the defendant and the co-defendant of the first instance court (the claim of KRW 1 and 2) and accepted the plaintiff's claim for damages against the defendant (the plaintiff's claim of KRW 33,90,00).

Therefore, since only the defendant appealed against the defendant among the judgment of the court of first instance, the subject of the judgment of this court is limited to the part of the plaintiff's claim for loans against the defendant (Article 3).

The reasoning for the court’s explanation of this case is as follows, except for the part concerning the claim for loans of March and the part concerning “4. conclusion” in the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case, and as such, the reasoning for the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance. As such, this is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence

On August 16, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 33.9 million to the Defendant the summary of the Plaintiff’s claim for loan.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

Judgment

Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties provided and received money, when the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the lending was made.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In this case, the burden of proof as to the Plaintiff’s assertion of lending is asserted, since the Defendant denies the fact of the lending agreement.