beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff is the mother of C.
B. The Defendant was married on March 22, 2007 with C, but the divorce conciliation was established on April 14, 2014 in the Ulsan District Court 2014ddan1201, etc.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Eul evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) around December 29, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff interest at KRW 100,000 per month. Since the Defendant paid the interest agreed only on November 25, 2013, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 32,70,000,000,000 and the unpaid interest up to February 25, 2016. (2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30,000,000,000 to the Defendant upon request of his parents, and used it for daily expenses, not for the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff.
At the time of divorce with C, the Defendant agreed not to repay 30 million won each, which was received from C and the Defendant’s principal.
B. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s bank account on December 29, 2011.
Meanwhile, in a case where a remittance is made to another person's deposit account, the remittance can be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, simple delivery, etc. Therefore, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the money can be received between the parties, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of the receipt of the money is a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it was received due to a loan for consumption,
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Therefore, as to whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant, health care units and evidence No. 1 (defluence) are as follows.