beta
Text
1. The judgment of the court of first instance is modified as follows.
The defendant is about USD 130,000 in US dollars to the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff has delivered USD 200,000 (hereinafter “U.S. currency”) to the Defendant in cash.
B. The Defendant lent USD 200,000 to C as a loan construction fund in early 2008.
[Ground] Facts without dispute, the purport of the whole argument
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff asserts that, since he lent USD 200,00 to the defendant around July 2007, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the above USD 200,000 after deducting USD 70,000 paid by the plaintiff from USD 30,00 and delay damages.
In this regard, the defendant recognized that USD 200,000 was paid by the plaintiff, but he did not receive a loan on or around July 2007, but claimed that C's obligation to return a loan to the defendant on or around the end of 2008 or around the beginning of 2009 was repaid by the plaintiff on behalf of the plaintiff.
B. In full view of the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5, 13, 14, and Eul’s evidence Nos. 4, and witness D, E, and F’s testimony of the first instance court, the following circumstances are revealed.
① The Plaintiff either borrowed USD 30,000 from E, and KRW 20,000,000 from D, respectively, by revealing that the Plaintiff’s lending of USD 200,000 to the Defendant was necessary.
② The Plaintiff bears obligations against C.
It seems that there is no special reason for the plaintiff to pay the loan obligations to the defendant in subrogation of the plaintiff on the ground that there is no such circumstance as the monetary transaction relationship or the existence of a contractual relationship between the two parties.
③ The Defendant, through his children, expressed his intention to pay USD 130,000 to the Plaintiff by calculating USD 130,000 as KRW 130,000.
In light of the above circumstances, the Plaintiff knew that the Defendant lent USD 200,000 to C, but did not receive any return, and the Plaintiff himself knew that he did not receive any return.