2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

From June 21, 2010 to September 3, 2013, the Plaintiff leased total of KRW 129,595,000 to the Defendant, as shown in the [Attachment Table 1], by means of remitting to the Defendant’s mother’s account and the Defendant’s virtual account.

On September 1, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3 million under the name of D’s premium acquired by the Plaintiff to the account designated by the Defendant, and KRW 3 million under the name of D’s premium acquired by the Plaintiff.

However, the defendant paid 1.5 million won out of the above 3 million won as the premium, and consumed the remaining 1.5 million won for personal purposes.

Meanwhile, from September 30, 2010 to September 24, 2012, the Defendant repaid total of KRW 19,700,000 to the Plaintiff as shown in the attached Table 2.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff 11,395,00 won (=131,095,000 won + 1,595,000 won + 1,50,000 won) minus 19,70,000 won and damages for delay.

The relevant legal doctrine is a contract under which one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such ownership in kind, quality and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As such, it is natural that the other party agrees to do so.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, and simple delivery. Thus, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the money is received between the parties, the Plaintiff asserts the cause of receiving the money as loan for consumption, while the Defendant asserts that it was received due to the loan for consumption if it is asserted by the Plaintiff.