beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From July 25, 2017, as seen below, KRW 650,00 was remitted from the Plaintiff’s passbook to the Defendant’s passbook from July 25, 2017, and KRW 195,50,000 was remitted from the Defendant’s passbook to the Plaintiff’s passbook.
Defendant Non-Appellant (hereinafter “Defendant Non-Appellant”) KRW 100,000,000 on December 25, 2017, 2017, KRW 190,000 on July 26, 2017, KRW 100,000 on July 26, 2017, KRW 200,000 on July 27, 2017, 2017, KRW 100,000 on August 10, 2017, KRW 3,500,000 on December 10, 200, KRW 3,500,000 on December 10, 2017, KRW 195,500,000 on the aggregate of KRW 650,00,000,000 on KRW 195,500,000.
B. The amount of money in C’s passbook was remitted to the Defendant’s passbook from August 4, 2017 to the Defendant’s passbook (i.e., KRW 30 million on August 4, 2017, KRW 50 million on August 14, 2017, KRW 80 million on a total, KRW 50 million on August 14, 2017) (i.e., KRW 30 million). [Evidence 2] There is no dispute over the fact that there is no ground for recognition], the entries in subparagraphs 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent a total of KRW 730 million to the Defendant by directly remitting KRW 650 million to the Defendant and remitting KRW 80 million to the Defendant using the passbook C (= KRW 650 million). However, the Defendant paid KRW 195,500,00 to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 534,50,000 (= KRW 730 million – KRW 195,500,000) and damages for delay. (ii) The amount remitted to the Defendant’s passbook, not the Defendant, was borrowed by the Plaintiff.
The defendant's passbook was used only in the process of borrowing the money from the plaintiff's thesis, which is one's own life.
B. 1) Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the parties offered money to the Plaintiff even if there is no dispute as to the fact that they received money ought to be proved by the facts that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant (see Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). 2) and the evidence examined by the court.