beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's primary claim and the ancillary claim added by this court are all available.
Reasons
1. The reasoning of this court’s judgment that is to indicate the facts and the party’s assertion is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except for adding the following contents to the corresponding part of the judgment of the first instance. Therefore, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.
The following shall be added to Chapter 6 of the judgment of the first instance.
Even if the Plaintiff and the Defendant were not recognized to have concluded a lending contract, the Defendant obtained a profit equivalent to KRW 30,800,000, which was remitted from the Plaintiff without any legal grounds, and the Plaintiff suffered a loss equivalent to the same amount, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff with unjust enrichment.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the loan claim (main assertion), it is recognized that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30,800,000 to the Defendant’s corporate bank account on May 31, 2016 (hereinafter “instant money”).
However, 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). It is natural that the other party agrees to do so.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). Moreover, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, such remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was jointly carried out is asserted against the Plaintiff that the remittance was made based on a loan for consumption.