대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The fact that the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 59,000,000 on September 6, 2012, 2012, KRW 6,000,000 on September 14, 2012, and KRW 59,00,000 on September 20, 2012 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the bank account under the name of the Defendant is no dispute between the parties.
The plaintiff asserts that since the amount of this case was to be refunded within one year, the defendant should pay the amount of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.
In order to be a loan under a loan for consumption under the civil law, the intention to return the money of the lender and the borrower must be implicitly agreed to.
It is insufficient to view that the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to the effect that the instant money was a loan under a loan for consumption, with the sole statement of No. 3, at the time of delivery of the instant money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
[The Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the instant money on or around September 3, 2013, and the Defendant did not express any particular intent (Evidence No. 13)]. The Plaintiff’s claim is dismissed on the grounds that it is without merit.