beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s loan case against the Plaintiff (Seoul Southern District Court) No. 2014 Ghana15725 dated January 27, 2015.
Reasons
1. The Defendant filed a claim against the Plaintiff for the payment of KRW 2,700,00 and the delay damages thereof with the Seoul Southern District Court Decision 2014 Ghana157225. On January 27, 2015, the said court rendered a decision of performance recommendation as to the above claim, and the said decision became final and conclusive on February 18, 2015.
2. The parties' assertion
A. The Defendant is a creditor of a loan to C, and the Plaintiff, as a relative of C, sought to recover C in Vietnam, and asked to lend KRW 2,700,000, such as aviation fees, etc. to the Defendant. The Defendant consented and lent KRW 2,700,000 to the Plaintiff’s account six times, and the Plaintiff is liable for the repayment of the above loan to the Defendant.
B. As to this, the Plaintiff did not know of the Defendant, and did not borrow money from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff collected the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s account in the name of the Defendant and delivered the said KRW 2,700,000 to D.
3. Determination
A. As to the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, the grounds arising prior to such decision may also be asserted in the lawsuit of demurrer (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da34190, May 14, 2009). In a lawsuit of demurrer, the burden of proof as to the relevant grounds is in accordance with the principle of allocation of the burden of proof in general civil procedure. Therefore, in a case where the Plaintiff claims that the Plaintiff had not established his/her claim in a lawsuit of demurrer against the final and conclusive decision of performance recommendation, the Defendant is liable to prove the existence of the claim.
B. According to each of the facts stated in Gap evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the defendant transferred KRW 2,700,00 to the bank account in the name of the plaintiff from November 3, 2010 to August 22, 2011, although it is found that the defendant transferred the above amount to the plaintiff only on the basis of the above facts acknowledged.