대여금
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent money from December 2012 to July 2016 by means of remitting money to the account held in the name of the Defendant and sought the return of the balance of the loan amounting to KRW 87,225,188.
Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money has been received, if the defendant contests against the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proving that the lending was made.
(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, and Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc.). In this case, the Defendant asserted that, as a husband’s business relationship, the Plaintiff only lent the Defendant’s account to C to use the Defendant’s account and did not borrow money from the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff submitted the Plaintiff’s certificate Nos. 1 and 2 as a document prepared by arranging the details of the Plaintiff’s financial transaction as evidence proving the above claim. However, it is difficult to acknowledge that the Plaintiff transferred money from December 201 to July 2016 by itself to the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant. Furthermore, even if it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant’s account and received money from the Defendant’s account, such financial transaction alone concluded with the Defendant and concluded a monetary loan agreement with the Plaintiff and did not have any other evidence to acknowledge that the money was remitted.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is so decided as per Disposition.