beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from July 18, 2019 to February 5, 2021.
Reasons
1. Around April 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) came to know each other as the Plaintiff got the Plaintiff to conduct a campaign in D fishing Big “D”; (b) from March 24, 2015 to August 1, 2017, the Plaintiff delivered KRW 47,350,000 in cash, etc. to the Defendant as shown in attached Table 1; (c) as shown in attached Table 2, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 69,60,000 in total to the Defendant’s bank account as shown in attached Table 3; and (d) the Defendant did not dispute between the parties on the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 51,20,000 in total to the Plaintiff’s bank account as shown in attached Table 3; or (e) did not dispute between the parties on the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 51,20,000,000 in total to the Plaintiff’s bank account as shown in attached Table 3; and (e) the overall purport of inquiry and changes in information on E.
2. Summary of the parties’ assertion
A. The plaintiff paid 47,350,000 won in the attached Table 1 to the defendant as stated in the reasons for lending the attached Table 1, but did not receive payment. Further, the plaintiff lent 69,60,000 won in the attached Table 2 to the defendant, among which he was paid 51,20,000 won in total as shown in the attached Table 3, and the defendant paid 65,750,000 won in the unpaid loan [ = 47,350,000 won in the attached Table 18,40,000 won in the attached Table 1 (69,60,000 won in -51,200,000 won in the attached Table 2] and damages for delay should be paid to the plaintiff.
B. Money that the Plaintiff paid in cash to the Defendant or remitted to the account is not a loan granted by the Plaintiff, except for three million won on August 1, 2017, in relation to the Defendant.
3. Determination
A. In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account due to the transfer of money, etc., such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as consumption lending, donation, and change of money. Therefore, the mere fact that such transfer had been made that there was a mutual agreement between the parties to consumption lending and lending.
It cannot be easily concluded (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 decided July 26, 2012).