대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.
2. After an appeal is filed.
1. Basic facts
A. From May 2006 to August 2008, C performed the sales agency business of Non-Party Company D (hereinafter “Non-Party Company”) with the office of the Plaintiff’s representative from around May 2006 to around August 2008. The Plaintiff deposited the fees, etc. to be paid from Non-Party Company C into the Defendant bank account in the name of the Defendant at the time of Nonparty Company C’s wife.
B. On August 12, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the above bank account under the Defendant’s name.
C. C was subject to criminal punishment by committing an occupational breach of trust while carrying out the sales agency business of the non-party company, and the non-party company filed a lawsuit against C on March 7, 2017, claiming damages under the court 2016da28719.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6 (including branch numbers), and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Plaintiff’s assertion and judgment thereon
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion (1) was that the Plaintiff, on August 12, 2008, lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s bank account by means of remitting it to the Defendant’s bank account. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 10 million.
(2) If a conjunctive assertion is not deemed that the remittance from August 12, 2008 as above was a monetary loan, the defendant gains a profit of KRW 10 million from the above remittance without any legal ground, and the plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount. Thus, the defendant must return to the plaintiff an unjust enrichment of KRW 10 million.
B. First of all, in light of the following: (a) the relationship between the Plaintiff and C at the time of the above transfer; and (b) the Plaintiff appears to have deteriorated its relationship due to occupational breach of trust of C; (c) however, the Plaintiff appears to have never exercised the right to, or demanded repayment of, the above transfer before the instant case; and (d) the Plaintiff merely lent the above money to the Defendant by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.