beta
(영문) 광주지방법원해남지원 2017.07.04 2017가단213

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 65,000,00 to the account of C, which was his/her father and the Defendant’s wife.

B. C remitted each of the Defendant’s accounts KRW 700,000 on May 19, 2012, and KRW 64,000,000 on May 21, 2012.

C. The Defendant and C have been divorced thereafter.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On May 18, 2012, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 65,00,000 to the Defendant.

The defendant is obligated to return the above loan to the plaintiff.

3. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 65,00,000 to C on May 18, 2012, and C transferred KRW 64,700,00 to the Defendant within the number of days thereafter is as seen earlier.

However, as seen below, the above facts and the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

① There is no direct evidence to deem that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to lend the said money to C while remitting the said KRW 65,00,000 to C.

② The Plaintiff remitted KRW 65,000,000 to C other than the Defendant.

Although the Plaintiff decided to lend the said money to the Defendant, not C, there is no special circumstance to transfer the said money to C other than the Defendant.

③ Even if C remitted most of the above KRW 65,00,00 that it received from the Plaintiff to the Defendant, in view of the fact that C and the Defendant were the married couple at the time, C could have paid the above money in accordance with a separate relationship with the Defendant.

④ In light of the fact that the Plaintiff and C are female-related persons, there is sufficient possibility that the Plaintiff transferred money to C for any reason other than lending.

⑤ The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant purchased apartment with the money remitted by the Plaintiff and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the future of the Defendant.

The plaintiff submitted.