beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On May 19, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff provided a loan of KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the condition that he was paid KRW 110 million by May 28, 2008, and the Defendant repaid KRW 30 million on June 10, 2008.
After that, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant that the Defendant should pay the unpaid KRW 70 million and the annual interest rate of 24%.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 217,770,00,000 as the principal and interest up to February 18, 2018, and the loan amount of KRW 70,000 and delay damages therefrom.
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine 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 the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). It is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). In addition, in a case where money is transferred to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the party’s intent as to loan for consumption has been jointly determined solely on the fact that such transfer was made.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). The burden of proving the existence of the parties’ intent lies in the assertion that the remittance was caused by a loan for consumption.
B. In full view of the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the court below held that the plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million from his account on May 19, 2008 to the defendant, but there is no objective evidence such as the loan certificate stating the due date and interest rate, and that the amount equivalent to the interest of 24% per annum as asserted by the plaintiff was not paid to the plaintiff.