대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
1...
1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5 may be admitted as a whole by integrating the whole purport of the pleadings:
Plaintiff
The total amount of KRW 19,00,000,000, which was total of KRW 10,000 on May 30, 2014, and KRW 9,000,00 on June 2, 2014, was remitted to the Defendant’s bank account in the name of C in the name of the Defendant.
B. The sum of KRW 7,770,000 was remitted from the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff to the deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff, KRW 3,60,00 on July 31, 2014, and KRW 4,170,000 on October 8, 2014.
2. Summary of the parties' arguments;
A. On June 2, 2014, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 20,000 to the Defendant 3% per month for interest and the due date on November 30, 2014, respectively. As above, the Plaintiff wired KRW 19,000,000 in total to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant’s wife from the deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant’s wife, and pays KRW 400,000 in cash to the Defendant. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff paid KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant who agreed to deduct KRW 60,000 from June 2, 2014 to July 1, 2014.
On July 31, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 600,000 to the Plaintiff from July 2, 2014 to August 1, 2014. On October 18, 2014, the Defendant paid KRW 600,000 to the Plaintiff from August 2, 2014 to September 1, 2014.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 20,000,000 and the agreed interest or delay damages from September 2, 2014.
B. The defendant ordered the drilling construction upon the plaintiff's introduction, and the total amount of KRW 19,00,000,000, which the defendant received from the plaintiff to the deposit account in the name of C, is part of the cost of drilling construction to be paid by the defendant.
3. Determination
A. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the relevant legal doctrine exchange money, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of the receipt of money is a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption.