beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff, on November 17, 2006, lent to the Defendant a check of KRW 50 million (the check number: C; hereinafter “the check of this case”) issued by the NAFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFFF
B. The Plaintiff donated KRW 50 million to Defendant D on condition that he she hedging with the Defendant, and did not borrow money from the Plaintiff.
2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, the plaintiff issued a cashier's check (the check number: C; hereinafter "the check of this case") of KRW 50 million at the face value of the No. 17, Nov. 17, 2006, and the check was deposited into the account in the name of D on Nov. 20, 2006. The defendant received text messages attached with the photograph of this case from the plaintiff on July 3, 2016, and sent the plaintiff "Imp check, Imp, Imp, Imp, Imp, Immp, Immp, Imp, Immp, Immp, Imp, and Imp, Immp, Imp."
However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by adding up the aforementioned evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant only with the above acknowledged facts and the statement of evidence No. 3 (Abstract of Resident Registration). The Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit, as there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
① Although the face value of the instant check is 50 million won or more, the Plaintiff did not prepare a document, such as a loan certificate, which can be known that the said check was a loan, and did not set the due date or interest, etc.
② On July 3, 2016, the Plaintiff issued a check and sent a photograph to the Defendant on July 3, 2016, and there is no circumstance or circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the check up to that point.
③ The Defendant, while living together with D, appears to have continued to live together with the Plaintiff for a period of 2012 after the check was deposited in the name of D.