beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.
The defendant.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff alleged that on October 11, 2007, the plaintiff attempted to remit KRW 12,00,000 to the account under the name of the defendant upon receiving the defendant's request for the lending of KRW 12,00,000,000 (hereinafter "the money of this case") by mistake, but the defendant asserts that the plaintiff should return the money of KRW 10,80,50,000, which was remitted by mistake as above, as unjust enrichment, to the plaintiff.
On the other hand, the defendant asserts that around May 2015, the plaintiff made a full repayment of the loan and received a full repayment from the plaintiff on the cash custody certificate, and that the plaintiff's claim is unjust.
2. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff remitted 12,00,000 won to the defendant's account on October 11, 2007. The defendant, around January 7, 2008, deposited KRW 9,500,000 to the plaintiff with the bank account No. 7,000,000,000 to the total amount of KRW 7,000,000,000 to the plaintiff on several occasions from 2007. Therefore, it can be recognized that the plaintiff made and delivered a cash custody certificate (hereinafter "the cash custody certificate of this case") stating that "I will complete the payment by May 25, 2015."
However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above evidence and the purport of the entire arguments, namely, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant six times from July 11, 2007 to July 15, 2008. The total amount of loans except the instant money was 12,520,000 won, and the total amount was 24,520,000 won, which is 24,50,000 won on the cash custody certificate of this case, are larger than the amount the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant during the above period. The amount of this case was extremely excessive, compared to the amount the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant during the above period, the Defendant and the Defendant’s husband were forced to communicate with the Plaintiff on or around September 2014.