logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.24 2016가단256580
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Case summary and key issues

A. The summary of the instant case: (a) from March 25, 2010 to April 20, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 50,11 million to the Defendant’s account.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the above money because the plaintiff first lent the above money to the defendant, and that the defendant should return the money because he received the money from the plaintiff without any legal ground.

In this regard, the defendant asserted that the defendant did not have any obligation to return the above money to the plaintiff, since he merely transferred the above money to the non-party D who operated C with the defendant's name upon the plaintiff's request.

B. The key issue of the instant case is whether the money transferred by the Plaintiff was “loaned” to the Defendant, and whether the said money should be returned to the Plaintiff as it did not have any legal ground.

2. Even if there is no dispute over the facts that the parties provided and received money as to the primary argument, the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made has the burden of proof against the plaintiff who asserts that the lending was made.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, and Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018, etc.). The details of the deposit and withdrawal submitted by the Plaintiff are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,1100 to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

3. As to the conjunctive assertion

A. Article 741 of the Civil Act provides, “A person who gains a benefit from another’s property or labor without any legal cause and thereby causes a loss to the other person shall return such benefit.”

The so-called unjust enrichment is that one of the parties claims the return of certain benefits at his own will on the grounds that the benefits are not legally attributable.

arrow