beta
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2021.02.03 2019가단14937

대여금

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to lend money to the Plaintiff, thereby lending KRW 106,126,750 in total from February 10, 2017 to October 11, 2018.

After that, the defendant and D repaid the total of KRW 70,575,000, the principal of KRW 60,050,000, interest of KRW 10,525,000.

The defendant given the passbook in his name to D and used the passbook as the defendant's passbook for lending money from the plaintiff. Since the defendant repaid interest and principal on the loan, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with D to pay the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 46,076,750 and the delayed damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from August 13, 2020 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant merely stated that he would receive a loan from the apartment loan in installments and pay the principal and interest together with the defendant's apartment loan in Korea, and did not know at all about the monetary transaction with the plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant's office was traded and repaid the secured loan with the price.

2. Determination:

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the facts of recognition as evidence No. 1 and evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2-2, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 106,126,750 in total to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant from February 10, 2017 to January 29, 2018, and received KRW 70,575,000 in total from February 10, 2017 to October 11, 2018.

B. First of all, as to the determination of the claim for a loan, whether the Defendant can be recognized as a party to a consumption lending contract from the Plaintiff, i.e., health expenses, the following circumstances revealed by the records of this case, namely, there is no objective evidence to prove the fact of a consumption lending contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant’s account upon the Defendant’s request from the Defendant’s son to lend money, and directly with the Defendant.