대여금등
The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The judgment of the first instance.
1. Upon the Defendant’s request on November 7, 2017, the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) transferred KRW 5,750,000 to the account under the name of the Defendant; (b) KRW 4,00,000 to the account under the name of C; and (c) KRW 1,00,000 to the account under the name of D on October 22, 2017; and (c) KRW 532,00 to the E account on December 6, 2017, respectively, and lent KRW 11,282,00 to the Defendant.
Furthermore, in accordance with the investment agreement with the Defendant, the Plaintiff invested KRW 15,000,000 in the aggregate of KRW 10,000,000,000 at the FF store located in Daegu-gun, as the daily fee for KRW 5,000,000, in accordance with the collective investment agreement with the Defendant. < Amended by Presidential Decree No. 23688, Feb. 10, 201>
The Defendant decided to repay the total amount of KRW 26,282,00,000 each month from February 20, 2018 to KRW 2,00,000. However, the Defendant did not fully repay the remaining amount, except for the amount of KRW 2,00,000 on February 20, 2018.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the remaining amount of KRW 24,282,00 and damages for delay from March 20, 2018 to the plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. In case of remitting money to another person’s deposit account by transferring the money, etc., the remittance can be made based on a variety of legal causes. Therefore, the remittance is a loan under a monetary loan contract with the person who receives it, or an investment under an investment agreement has the burden of proof for the party who asserts it.
(Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014 and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24,
According to the statements in Gap's evidence Nos. 2 through 4, the plaintiff is recognized to have remitted 5,750,000 won to the account in the name of the defendant on November 7, 2017, and 4,000,000 won to the account in the name of C, and 1,00,000,000 won to the account in the name of D on October 22, 2017, and 532,000 won to the account in the name of E on December 6, 2017.
However, the following circumstances, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the evidence presented above, namely, ① the loan certificates, the investment agreement, and receipts, etc. that prove the fact of loan and investment as alleged by the Plaintiff.