beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Purport of claim and appeal
The first instance court.
Reasons
1. On September 18, 201, the Plaintiff asserted as the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim lent KRW 10,000,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant is obligated to return the amount stated in the claim to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, and repayment. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such transfer had been made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money was given and received between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made has the burden of proving that the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff.
(Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972; 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014)
According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was found to have remitted KRW 10,00,00 to the national bank account under the name of the defendant C, the husband of the defendant on September 19, 201 (hereinafter "the money of this case"), but there is no dispute. In light of the fact that the plaintiff transferred the money of this case to the defendant's bank account on September 19, 201, the following circumstances acknowledged by considering the whole purport of the argument in Eul evidence No. 1, there is no document prepared with respect to the money of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant as a whole, such as a certificate of borrowing or a certificate of cash custody, and the plaintiff and the defendant were related to the plaintiff at the time and the defendant transferred the money of this case to the plaintiff on October 26, 2012, and the plaintiff seems to have not filed a claim for the return of the money of this case to the defendant on September 20, 2018, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the above money of this case was leased to the defendant.