beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
Basic Facts
The Plaintiff’s bank account as the Defendant’s Cbank account, KRW 35,00,000, and KRW 35,000,000 on January 8, 2007, and KRW 49,000 on January 9, 2007, KRW 49,000,000 on January 10, 207, KRW 18,000 on January 11, 2007, KRW 200,00 on January 30, 2007, KRW 49,000 on January 30, 200, KRW 00 on January 30, 200, KRW 49,000 on January 31, 200, KRW 49,000 on February 49, 200, KRW 000 on February 1, 207, KRW 300 on deposit by the parties concerned, and KRW 300,300 on deposit.
The plaintiff's assertion by the plaintiff is that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant and KRW 420,000,000,000 on April 5, 2007, or KRW 420,000 without fixing the due date. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above KRW 420,000,00 and interest and delay damages.
The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff's money was paid to the defendant is limited to KRW 30,00,000, and the above money is not a loan, but only the money entrusted by the plaintiff upon requesting a futures option transaction to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is not obligated to return the above money to the plaintiff.
Judgment
Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money has been received, if the defendant contests against the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proving that the lending was made.
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). First, the fact that the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30,00,000 in the Defendant’s bank account from January 8, 207 to March 16, 207 is as seen earlier.
However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff additionally delivered KRW 90,00,00 on April 5, 2007 only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, 3, and 5-1, and 2 of evidence Nos. 4-1, 5-2, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Furthermore, this paper examined whether the above KRW 330,000,000 is a loan, and the above evidence and the evidence as mentioned in the above evidence as well as Eul evidence as mentioned in subparagraph 2 as a whole.