beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as 6% per annum from July 23, 2019 to January 14, 2020 to the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Case summary and judgment
A. The fact that the Defendant, on December 17, 2018, borrowed KRW 25,00,000 from the Plaintiff as construction capital from the Plaintiff as of December 17, 2018, and agreed to return by February 8, 2019 is no dispute between the parties.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 25,000,000 and damages for delay.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that, in addition to the above loan amount of KRW 25,00,000, the Defendant additionally lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on January 7, 2019, and KRW 20,000,000 on January 17, 2019 (the Plaintiff paid KRW 225,720,000,000 from the Defendant around December 13, 2018. The Defendant borrowed KRW 25,00,000 from the Plaintiff as above and demanded additional loans of KRW 30,00,000,000 to the Defendant’s on-site manager’s order designated in accordance with the direction of the Defendant’s on-site manager. (The Plaintiff transferred the Plaintiff’s on-site manager’s 30,000,000,000 in total as above).
Where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account and transfers money, the 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 an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption, etc. solely on the sole basis of 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 consistent exists is the Plaintiff claiming that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption, etc.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). In this case, the Plaintiff’s assertion itself transferred KRW 30,00,000 to a third party’s deposit account, not the Defendant. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion itself is deemed to have entered into a subcontract construction contract as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if it is acknowledged that the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into the subcontract construction contract, by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the written evidence Nos.