beta
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2019.04.09 2018가단59843

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’s assertion was: (a) from April 14, 2017 to June 2, 2017, the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 75 million to the Defendant via D, and thus, (b) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 75 million and delay damages therefrom.

Even if the Plaintiff borrowed the above money to her husband C, since the name of use of the above money is included in the scope of daily home life insurance, the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay the above money.

B. The defendant's assertion that he did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

2. First, we examine the Plaintiff’s loan assertion.

A loan for consumption is established when 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, there must be an agreement between the parties as to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the said remittance may result in various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, custody, or entrustment of delivery, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a mutual consent of the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made. The Plaintiff asserts that the said remittance was made due to a loan for consumption. The burden of proving that there was such mutual consent is the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said remittance was made due to a loan for consumption.

(Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Apr. 26, 201). According to the Evidence Nos. 1 and 2, D remitted KRW 5 million to the deposit account in the name of the defendant in his/her own deposit account on April 14, 2017; KRW 15 million on April 18, 2017; KRW 10 million on April 24, 2017; KRW 5 million on April 26, 2017; KRW 5 million on April 29, 2017; KRW 10 million on May 4, 2017; KRW 8 million on May 1, 2017; and KRW 6 million on May 27, 2017;