대여금
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant received the Plaintiff from Nonparty C and borrowed KRW 51,544,742 from the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 51,544,742 and delay damages.
B. 1) According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the fact that the plaintiff remitted KRW 51,544,742 to D’s vehicle installment payment account opened in the name of the defendant on May 29, 2019 is recognized. 2) The plaintiff asserts that he/she remitted the above money according to the conclusion of a monetary loan agreement with the defendant.
A monetary loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer ownership of money to the other party and the other party agrees to return it to the same amount (see Supreme Court Decision 2015Da73098, Dec. 27, 2018). The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant agreed to return the said money to the Plaintiff, and no other evidence exists to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim based on the premise that a monetary loan contract was concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant is not accepted as it is without merit.
2. Judgment on the conjunctive claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, without any legal ground, took 51,544,742 pecuniary benefits in relation to the Plaintiff.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 51,544,742 with unjust enrichment and delay damages.
B. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides that “A person who gains a benefit from another person’s property or service without any legal cause and thereby causes a loss to another person shall return such benefit.”
The burden of proving that there is no legal ground in the case of the so-called unjust enrichment that one of the parties has paid a certain amount of benefit according to his own will and then claims the return of the benefit on the ground that the benefit is not a legal ground.