Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant who is engaged in the business related to investment in the United Kingdom Bank Co., Ltd. with the introduction of the branch.
B. The Plaintiff remitted KRW 16.8 million to the Defendant’s account on November 3, 2016, and KRW 4.2 million on December 15, 2016, to purchase the U.K. bank’s coaches.
C. Around November 4, 2016, the Defendant remitted the amount that the Plaintiff remitted to (State)C and D account. Around November 4, 2016, the Defendant purchased coins equivalent to 12,000 tons in the Plaintiff’s child E’s name, and around December 21, 2016, coins equivalent to 1,50 tons in the Plaintiff’s child F and the Plaintiff’s seat G name.
The Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff’s child E KRW 1,050,50 on January 24, 2017, KRW 850,500 on February 18, 2017, KRW 20,50 on February 21, 2017, and KRW 830,50 on March 30, 2017.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 to 5 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The Plaintiff asserts that the amount remitted to the Defendant is a loan. However, according to the above facts acknowledged, the amount remitted by the Plaintiff appears not to be a loan, but to be an investment in the English Bank Co., Ltd., and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the said amount was a loan.
In light of the above evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Defendant appears to have purchased the above co-purchase and exchange on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff appears to have remaining in the name of the Plaintiff’s children and the co-owners, and the Plaintiff demanded the return of the above invested money due to delay in the listing of the above U.K. bank Co-owners, thereby causing difficulties in the transaction and exchange to the Defendant, it is difficult to view that the Defendant directly bears the obligation to return the above invested money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
3. The plaintiff's claim should be dismissed as it is reasonable.
The judgment of the court of first instance is unfair on the contrary's conclusion.