대여금
1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.
1. On June 22, 2010, the Plaintiff’s alleged F (hereinafter “the deceased”) lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 180 million worth of KRW 150 million on May 25, 2016 and KRW 180 million on May 25, 2016.
Since the Deceased died on July 30, 2019 due to a traffic accident, the Defendant is obligated to repay the above loans to the Plaintiffs, the inheritor of the Deceased, according to their respective inheritance shares.
2. Determination
A. In the event that money is transferred to another person’s deposit account on June 22, 2010, the remittance may be made based on various legal causes. Thus, the fact that money transferred by the deceased to the defendant under a monetary loan contract is a loan under a monetary loan contract (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972) shall be proved by the plaintiff who asserts that the money is a loan (including a serial number). According to each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2 of Articles 1 and 2 (including a serial number), it is recognized that the money was withdrawn in cash from the account of G, the mother of the deceased on June 22, 2010, and on the same day, the deceased transferred KRW 150 million to the defendant’s H bank account (I) twice.
On the other hand, the defendant also recognized the fact that he received KRW 150 million from the deceased around June 22, 2010.
3) However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in the statements in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 above, the fact that the deceased paid KRW 150 million to the Defendant is insufficient to recognize that the above money is a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (On the other hand, the Plaintiffs expressed their intent to confirm the transaction relationship between the Defendant and the J through the submission order of the financial transaction information pertaining to the details of the Defendant’s financial transaction transaction. However, as seen below, the Plaintiffs’ assertion against the Defendant’s assertion denying the Plaintiffs’ assertion, and thus, it appears that it constitutes a evidence method directly proving