대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is the Defendant’s representative director C’s fault and the Defendant’s auditor as a result of the Defendant’s financial difficulties, and the Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant by way of remitting money to the Defendant’s account frequently or by subrogation of the Defendant’s obligation from February 2, 2012 to January 28, 2014. Of them, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of loans that have not been paid yet, KRW 59,790,000 and damages for delay.
2. In case of remitting money to another person (or a legal entity)’s deposit account for the cause of the claim to transfer money to another person’s deposit account, the remittance may be based on a variety of legal causes. As such, the claimant has the burden of proving that the remitted money is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person (or the legal entity) who receives it.
(2) In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s account transfer amount from the amount transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account to January 28, 2014 to KRW 59,790,00 is deemed to have exceeded KRW 1,26187, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018, etc.). In light of the above legal principles, the Plaintiff’s account transfer amount from the amount transferred from February 2, 2012 to the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account from February 28, 2014 to January 28, 2014 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 201Da126187, Jul. 10, 201; Supreme Court Decision 201Da16210, Oct. 1, 201; Supreme Court Decision 200Da1621, Feb. 1, 2012