beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of Gap's evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the whole pleadings, the letter of loan (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") issued on June 26, 2017 under the name of the defendant was stated as follows: "45,00,000 won, interest: June 26, 2017; 2% per month; the last day of each month; and the due date for payment: July 4, 2017; and the defendant, upon receiving the plaintiff's demand for payment on July 3, 2017, sent E text messages stating that "the plaintiff will repay the above KRW 45,000,000,000," and according to this, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the creditor, except under special circumstances.
2. On June 27, 2017, the Defendant asserts that there is no obligation to repay the above money from the Plaintiff as it borrowed money from the Plaintiff for gambling at the hotel casino. Accordingly, on June 26, 2017, the Plaintiff received a request from the Defendant at the coffee shop of the 2nd hotel, and confirmed that the Defendant had the ability to repay as the owner of the building located in Seongdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government through a certified copy of the real estate register, etc., and received a copy of the passport and the instant certificate of borrowing from the Defendant, and then, the Defendant was unaware of the circumstances that only lent the Hong Kong USD 45,00,000 with Korean money in cash, and the Defendant used it as gambling money.
The amount of money lent as gambling funds can not be claimed as an illegal cause benefit (see Supreme Court Decision 4291Sang561, Aug. 27, 1959). The following circumstances revealed by the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff was unaware of the Defendant at all before the date of the preparation of the loan certificate. The first loan of large amount of money equivalent to KRW 45,00,000 to the Defendant, which was a financial transaction, is not shaken.