beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On August 20, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 42,075,00 to the Defendant. Since the Defendant did not pay the above amount, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
Even if the defendant did not borrow the above amount but received the above amount from the account in the name of the defendant, the above amount was benefiting without any legal ground, and thus, the above amount should be returned to the plaintiff.
In addition, if the defendant lent the defendant's account to C, he is obliged to pay the amount equivalent to the above amount to the plaintiff for damages caused by the tort.
2. Determination
A. The 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 such a kind, quality and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As to the foregoing point, there must be an agreement between the parties.
In addition, in a case where money is remitted to another person's deposit account, the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loans for consumption, investment, donation, repayment, entrustment of custody, and consignment of delivery. Therefore, solely on the fact that such remittance was made, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties to a loan for consumption, and the burden of proving that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption is the party asserting that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.
According to the statements in Gap 1, 3, and 4, the fact that the plaintiff transferred money to the defendant's account in the name of the defendant as alleged by the plaintiff can be acknowledged. However, the evidence submitted alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff and the defendant have an intention to make a loan for consumption, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.
Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's argument.
(b).