대여금
1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.
Purport of claim and appeal
1..
1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, 2, and 7 of the basic facts, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) at a sports program for disabled children in 2007, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a close relationship with their parents and instructors after having come to know of the relationship; (b) the Plaintiff was in a deposit account of the Defendant to return KRW 60 million from September 16, 2013 to July 25, 2014; (c) the amount of KRW 25 million on July 7, 2014; and (d) the amount of KRW 1,5 million on May 13, 2015; and (e) the amount of KRW 60 million on November 11, 2015; and (e) the Defendant returned to the Plaintiff from November 2017 to July 25, 2017.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s remittance amount of the instant assertion is a loan.
Even if the Plaintiff expressed his/her intent to exempt the said money from liability against the Defendant, the said money should be paid to the Defendant so long as the Defendant subsequently agreed to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.
B. The amount of remittance of the Defendant’s assertion is the amount that the Plaintiff donated to the Defendant, which maintained internal relations with the Defendant.
Even if the Plaintiff’s loan was made, the Plaintiff expressed its intent to exempt the Defendant from the obligation.
Even if the defendant agreed to return the remittance amount of this case to the plaintiff after the plaintiff's declaration of obligation exemption, it constitutes a donation, and the defendant cancels his/her declaration of intent of donation.
Even if the obligation to return according to the agreement is recognized, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 500,000 per month as unpaid interest for ten years.
3. Determination
A. In light of the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view the amount of remittance of this case as a loan in light of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 5, Eul evidence Nos. 2, 6, 10, 11, and 12, and the whole purport of the pleadings.
The defendant alleged that the plaintiff had expressed his/her intent to exempt the amount of remittance of this case, but only the evidence submitted by the defendant has expressed his/her intent to exempt the amount of obligation.