beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. On September 25, 2013, the Plaintiff settled the Defendant’s 402AUD (hereinafter “AUD”) price for the use of an aircraft in Singapore, and on September 26, 2013, the Defendant’s 313AUD with its own cash card, respectively.
The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 2,200,000 to the Defendant on October 14, 2013, KRW 500,000 on October 17, 2013, and KRW 700,000 on October 28, 2013 (the addressee is C, but there is no dispute over the fact that the Defendant received the said money from a bank account in the name of C).
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with branch numbers) and the purport of whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff alleged that the Plaintiff leased KRW 2,200,00 to the Defendant the above aircraft usage price of KRW 715.13AUD (=402AUD + 315.13AUD) and KRW 2,200,00 to the Defendant on March 28, 2014. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was in a personal relationship with the Plaintiff from September 2013 to August 2013, but the amount of the aircraft usage price was paid on behalf of the Plaintiff for the remainder of Korea, and KRW 2,200,000 was knowingly donated to the Plaintiff with the knowledge of the Defendant’s difficult circumstances.
B. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the judgment did not exchange money, while the Plaintiff asserts the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, while the Defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the Plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that it is a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). As in the instant case, there is no document on disposition, such as a loan certificate, and there is only financial transaction details, etc., it should be determined by comprehensively taking account of indirect facts, such as the background leading up to exchanging money, source, amount, and intention of return, etc.
According to the above evidence, the plaintiff transferred the money to the defendant's account at that time, and the defendant's aircraft.