beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.24 2014가단64703

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 802,590,000 to the Defendant from January 13, 2011 to June 21, 2011. The Plaintiff was entitled to refund KRW 710,360,000 out of the principal amount, and the Plaintiff did not refund KRW 92,230,000 of the remainder principal amount. Thus, the Plaintiff claimed the return.

B. It is consistent with the fact that the Defendant received the above money claimed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account, but the Defendant merely borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff in a monetary transaction relationship between the Plaintiff and C by transferring it to C and receiving money in the name of principal or interest, and then remitting it to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In a case where a transfer is made by transferring money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made for various reasons. Therefore, the fact that the money transferred by the plaintiffs to the defendant is a loan under a monetary loan contract must be proved by the plaintiff who asserts that it is a loan.

B. The Plaintiff transferred the sum of KRW 802,590,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) to the Defendant’s account from January 13, 2011 to June 21, 2011 does not conflict between the parties. Therefore, in light of the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole as to whether the instant money was leased under a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the instant money is a loan to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s assertion on the premise that the instant money is a loan.

1) As alleged by the Plaintiff, no disposition document, such as a loan certificate, does exist to recognize the fact that the instant money is a loan. (2) The Plaintiff is several times from January 13, 2011 to June 21, 201.