대여금
1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;
The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 3,00,000 and shall pay to the plaintiff the full amount from November 24, 2015.
1. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant by account transfer on April 30, 2013 does not conflict between the parties.
2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant lent KRW 3,00,000 to the defendant without fixing the interest or the due date for payment on the ground that the deposit is required.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff brought about the land owned by the defendant around August 1976, and in return, the above KRW 3,000,000 was donated to the defendant.
3. In light of the following: (a) the Plaintiff paid KRW 3,00,000 to the Defendant despite the Plaintiff’s obligation to pay a bank amounting to KRW 46,00,000; and (b) the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said KRW 3,00,000 was leased to the Defendant on the sole basis of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 is insufficient to recognize the Defendant’s assertion that the said money was donated to the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, from November 24, 2015, the following day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case (in cases of a loan for consumption where the time of repayment has not been determined pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act, the lender shall set a reasonable period and notify the borrower of the return, and the borrower shall be liable for delay from the day following the expiration date of the maximum period. There is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement on the repayment of the loan in this case, and there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the repayment of the loan in this case before the filing date of the lawsuit in this case, and it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant
4. As such, the plaintiff's claim should be accepted for the reasons, and the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair for different conclusions, and thus, the plaintiff's appeal is accepted.