beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 20, 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) lent KRW 36,861,62 to the Defendant and lent KRW 36,861,62 to November 12, 2015.
2. The Plaintiff did not dispute the Plaintiff’s total transfer of KRW 3 million to the account under the name of the Defendant, KRW 8 million on May 20, 2015, KRW 8 million on May 22, 2015, KRW 12 million on May 25, 2015, KRW 4 million on August 3, 2015, KRW 400,000 on August 31, 2015, KRW 11,171,052 on September 11, 2015, KRW 158,720 on October 5, 2015, KRW 50 on August 12, 2015, KRW 200,000 on the aggregate between the parties concerned.
In this regard, the defendant asserted that his father, who used his own passbook, was only engaged in monetary transactions with the plaintiff, and that the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff.
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. As such, there must be an agreement between the parties as to the above point.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). In a lawsuit claiming the return of a loan, the burden of proving the conclusion of a contract for a loan for consumption is against the Plaintiff who asserts its effect.
(2) In the event that a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may take place based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the party’s intent to engage in a loan for consumption was consistent 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 transfer was in accord exists is asserted to the Plaintiff that the remittance was made on the ground of a loan for consumption.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 decided July 10, 2014, etc.). A3, 4-1, and 4.