대여금
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 7,000,000 and the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff July 18, 2018.
1. Basic facts - The Plaintiff married with C around January 25, 2013.
- Around June 2013, the Plaintiff transferred total of KRW 9 million to the Defendant (i.e., the Plaintiff’s mother) who is the mother of C (i.e., the Plaintiff’s mother).
(Provided, at the request of the Defendant, remitted money to the account in the name of D. D. - After that, the Plaintiff and C had come to fall between themselves, and the first instance court rendered a judgment of divorce around November 23, 2018.
Daegu Family Decision 2017Ddan110177 (Main Office), 2018Ddan100320 (Counterclaim), which is pending in the appellate trial after both appeals.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 through 3 (including paper numbers), Eul 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The parties' assertion - The plaintiff asserts that since the above nine million won loan is the loan, the defendant should complete the loan.
- The defendant asserts that the above nine million won is not a loan, but a child is sent to the meaning that the child assists the parent.
In addition, despite the fact that the loan is not a loan, it argues that the total amount of KRW 7.6 million was sent to the plaintiff's side.
B. (1) According to each of the evidence No. 3-1, No. 8-1, and No. 1 of the evidence No. 3-1, the court below found that the plaintiff remitted the above KRW 9 million to the defendant as a monetary loan.
In particular, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff nine million won (9 million won and damages for delay) in accordance with the evidence No. 3-1 (Defendant’s written statement).
(2) We examine the Defendant’s conjunctive defense of payment.
First of all, according to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant's repayment of KRW 2 million after borrowing the above KRW 9 million and the amount of one half of the month can be recognized.
Furthermore, the defendant asserts that he repaid the loan by remitting the total amount of KRW 5,626,757 from the plaintiff's account to the plaintiff's account.
According to the statement of evidence No. 3, the fact that the amount as alleged above has been remitted from the account of the plaintiff to the account of the plaintiff is recognized.