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.

Basic Facts

The network D and the designated parties are the parents of the defendant.

On April 26, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 16,990,00 to the Defendant.

[Grounds for recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, and the plaintiff's assertion as to the ground for claim purport of the entire pleadings against the defendant. The defendant shall be paid to the defendant for five months if he/she lent money to the plaintiff around April 25, 2012. The plaintiff received a loan from a financial institution on April 26, 2012 and remitted the amount of KRW 16,990,000 to the defendant, and the plaintiff paid the above principal amount of KRW 16,90,000 and interest 18,182,531 won to the financial institution as a substitute.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 18,172,531 and delay damages.

As to the designated parties, ① primarily, the designated parties are jointly and severally liable for the repayment of the principal and interest on the loan of the defendant, and thus they are jointly and severally liable with the defendant to pay KRW 18,172,531 and delay damages.

② Preliminaryly, the network D jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the principal and interest of the loan, and the selector inherited the above joint and several liability, the selector is jointly and severally liable with the Defendant to pay KRW 10,903,518 out of the above amount (= KRW 18,172,531 x inheritance shares 3/5, and less than KRW 3/5) and its delay damages.

Judgment

The plaintiff asserts that he lent the above money to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that he was transferred the money of investment from the plaintiff.

In the event of a transfer of money 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 there was a consensus among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such transfer had been made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that there was such a concurrence of intent is attributable to a loan for consumption.