대여금
1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added by this court are all dismissed.
2. Appeal;
1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim
A. On August 4, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that KRW 12,000,000 was due and loaned to the Defendant on August 5, 2016, with the agreed rate of 30% per annum.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated by the rate of 25% per annum as stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act from August 4, 2015 to the date of full payment.
B. In a case where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, and repayment, and thus, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement between the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the sole basis of the fact that such remittance was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was made is attributable to the party asserting that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.
According to the evidence evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was found to have remitted KRW 12,00,00 to the account under the name of the defendant on August 4, 2015, but it is not sufficient to recognize that the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff were concluded between the plaintiff and the defendant as alleged above, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's primary argument is without merit.
2. Judgment on the conjunctive cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant and his/her Dong transferred KRW 2,00,000 to Nonparty C on August 4, 2015 for the purpose of lending money to Nonparty C, who is the Defendant and his/her Dong name, and that money was remitted to the Defendant’s account that is the Dong name due to the Plaintiff’s mistake.
Accordingly, the defendant gain 12,00,000 won without any legal cause, and thereby caused damages to the plaintiff.
Therefore, the Defendant’s unjust enrichment amounting to KRW 12,00,000 and the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case from August 4, 2015 to the Plaintiff.