대여금
1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to that part shall be dismissed.
2...
1. The parties’ assertion that the Plaintiff leased a total of KRW 17,300,000 to the Defendant at 10% per annum from September 13, 2012 to October 13, 2012, but the Defendant only paid KRW 500,000 interest on October 13, 2012 and KRW 800,000 interest on October 28, 2013, and thus, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff sought the return of the principal and interest on the loan.
The Defendant refers to an illegal bond business that lends money at a high rate on the security of the Plaintiff’s husband C and the other party’s her husband C, which is an illegal security loan against the other party.
The business refers to the business of investing money in a person lodging in the private Internet horse, which is an illegal gambling business, and allowing him/her to gambling, and distributing profits therefrom. By doing so, the business is limited to a partner who has been transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account, and the Plaintiff’s interest claimed by the Plaintiff is merely a remittance at C’s request, and the fact of borrowing is actively denied.
2. Determination
A. Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there is the receipt of money between the parties, the cause of the receipt is the loan for consumption, and if the other party contests that the receipt is different, the party asserting that it was received due to the loan for consumption shall bear the burden of proof.
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). B.
The Plaintiff’s account was transferred from September 13, 201 to the Defendant’s account; KRW 2,00,00,000 on September 13, 2012; KRW 2,00,000 on September 22, 2012; KRW 300,000 on September 26, 2012; KRW 17,30,000 on October 13, 2012; KRW 13,00,000 on the Plaintiff’s account; KRW 50,00 on October 13, 2012; and KRW 80,000,00 on October 28, 2012 under the Plaintiff’s name was remitted from the Defendant’s account to the Defendant’s account; however, there was insufficient evidence to acknowledge otherwise between the Defendant and the Defendant’s money transfer contract.