beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 40,000,00 to the Defendant (24,000,000 to the Defendant’s account, and KRW 14,000,000 to the Defendant’s wife C). As such, the Defendant is liable to pay the said money and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.
Even if the Defendant cannot be deemed to have directly borrowed KRW 14,00,000 paid to C, C borrowed the said money under the name of the housing construction fund and the marriage fund for his/her father. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay the said money in accordance with Article 827(1) of the Civil Act.
B. According to the evidence No. 2, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 24,00,000 into the Defendant’s account in November 17, 2016.
However, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, the Defendant directly borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff solely on the basis of the following facts and circumstances that can be acknowledged by the respective descriptions and arguments of Nos. 1, 1, 2 (including additional numbers) and 1, 2 (including additional numbers).
It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the loan of the above money belongs to the scope of daily home sales agency, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is not accepted.
① The Defendant and C were married on January 22, 1987 and divorced on June 19, 2017.
② The Defendant asserted that C, the former wife of the Defendant, borrowed money from the Plaintiff, and only used the account in the name of the Defendant in the process of borrowing money, and that C also borrowed money from the Plaintiff as a business necessity of the Plaintiff and paid the money directly.
③ On November 17, 2016, C drafted a certificate of borrowing KRW 40,00,000 from the Plaintiff in its own name.
④ The time when the Plaintiff deposited money in the account under the name of the Defendant may not be excluded from the possibility that C was in a marital relationship with the Defendant, and that C was in a practical management of the account under the name of the Defendant.