대여금반환
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
1. Summary of the parties' arguments
A. Plaintiff: The Plaintiff from February 25, 2013 to the same year
4. Until February, 200, the Defendant leased KRW 30 million to the Defendant without setting the due date or interest. Thus, the Defendant must pay the above amount and the damages for delay.
B. Defendant: The Defendant did not know the Plaintiff at all and borrowed money from the Plaintiff.
The defendant's father D only received construction work introduction costs from the plaintiff using the passbook account in the name of the defendant due to bad credit standing, etc., so the claim in this case is without merit.
2. Determination: (a) the Plaintiff’s account at a national bank bank account in the name of the Defendant for KRW 10 million on February 25, 2013; and (b) the same year.
3.2.1 million won, and the same year.
4.2. The fact that each remittance of KRW 30 million including KRW 10 million (hereinafter “the instant money”) is without dispute between the parties.
However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of each description of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and the testimony of witness E of the party concerned, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone cannot be deemed as a loan to the Plaintiff against the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, the Plaintiff’s assertion on a different premise is without merit, since it appears that the Plaintiff paid the money to D (the Defendant’s father) as a loan for construction work.
(1) The Plaintiff was not aware of the Defendant before the instant lawsuit was brought, and there was no transaction between the Defendant and the Defendant, and there was no conversation between the Defendant, such as taking contact with each other, and the account transfer of the instant money to the Defendant’s account at the Defendant’s request.
If there are some circumstances, it is difficult to view the Defendant as the party who traded the instant money as a loan.
(2) The Plaintiff transferred the instant money to the Defendant’s passbook account.