beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary claim and the conjunctive claim are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 201, 201, the Plaintiff paid KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant, respectively, and KRW 120,00,000 around April of the same year.
(hereinafter “the instant money”). (b)
On April 27, 2011, in order to secure the completion of the hotel construction works in Gangwon-do, the Defendant concluded a mortgage agreement with C and static-gun D, E, F, and G land (hereinafter “instant land”) and completed the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage of KRW 450,00,000 for the maximum debt amount (hereinafter “instant mortgage”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, 3, Gap evidence 5-1 to 6, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s primary claim is an obligation to pay the Defendant the total amount of KRW 420,000,000,000,000 on March 2, 201, and KRW 120,000 on April 1 of the same year. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 420,00,000 and delay damages.
B. The Plaintiff asserts that even if the Plaintiff invested KRW 300,000,000 to the Defendant, as alleged in the Plaintiff’s conjunctive claim, the establishment registration of a neighboring establishment in the name of the Defendant was based on a contractual title trust, and the title trust agreement is null and void pursuant to Article 4 of the Act on the Registration of Real Estate under Actual Titleholder’s Name, the Defendant is liable to return the said KRW 300,000 to
C. The defendant alleged that he received KRW 420,000,000 from the plaintiff, but it is not a loan.
Judgment
1) Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties to a judgment on the primary claim receive money, the plaintiff is a loan for consumption, and the defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to a loan for consumption if it is alleged that it is different from that of receiving money (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972).