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 plaintiff's assertion
A. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 18,00,000 to D on September 29, 2006. Of the above money, the Plaintiff lent KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant; ② on May 25, 2007, lent KRW 35,000,000 to D by means of remitting KRW 35,000; ③ around April 12, 2007, lent KRW 35,000,000, out of KRW 100,000 lent from G to the Defendant; and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 73,00,000 (= KRW 3,000,000, KRW 35,000,0000, KRW 35,000,0000, and delay damages therefrom to the Defendant.
B. On May 23, 2008, the Plaintiff subrogated for “the Defendant’s debt of KRW 40,000,000” on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 40,000,000 as compensation for reimbursement, and the delay damages therefor.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment on the loan claim Gap, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted 18,00,000 won to D on September 29, 2006, and 35,000,000 won to D on May 23, 2007.
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 34 (including the number of branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), i.e., ① there is no direct evidence or a disposal document to prove whether the transferred money is a loan to the defendant, ② there is no specific assertion as to the repayment period or agreement for each loan, ③ there is no evidence to deem that the whole or part of the above money transferred to D was re-dried to the defendant. ④ The defendant was present as a witness in the case of cancellation of provisional registration No. 2013Da38676 of Gwangju District Court Decision No. 2013 and testified to the effect that "the defendant brought KRW 10 million to Gu and used KRW 35 million among them, it is difficult to conclude that the nature of the money was a loan to the plaintiff. ⑤ The plaintiff is the defendant's above KRW 73 million.