beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. All the plaintiff's primary claims and the conjunctive claims added at the trial.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff, on June 19, 2012, transferred KRW 110,00,000 in total to one bank account (Account Number: F) in the name of the Defendant, as follows, KRW 30,000,000 on May 21, 2012, KRW 10,000,000 on June 19, 2012.
(hereinafter referred to as “amount of remittance” in accordance with the sequence of remittances, and the total amount of remittances is “amount of remittances” hereinafter). / [Grounds for recognition] without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1 (including the serial number, hereinafter the same shall apply), and the purport of the whole pleadings.
2. Judgment as to the main claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff agreed to receive interest KRW 100,000 per month and lent the first remittance to the Defendant on May 21, 2013. Following the Plaintiff’s argument that the monthly amount of KRW 50,000,000 for the first remittance and the second remittance shall be paid KRW 90,000 per month, and the second remittance shall be returned to the Defendant at any time before the due date, and the second remittance amount shall be paid KRW 1,00,000 per month, and the third remittance amount shall be returned to the Defendant at any time if the Plaintiff wants to return it before the due date. As such, the instant money was leased to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to return it to the Plaintiff. (2) The Plaintiff’s argument by the Defendant merely served as a role of delivering the said money to E upon the Defendant’s recommendation, and the Defendant as a private person in the middle.
Since the instant money is not a loan to the Defendant, but a loan or an investment fund to E, the Defendant is not obligated to repay it.
B. Judgment 1) Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchange money, the plaintiff asserts the cause of the receipt of money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972) and the plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that it is a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 2, 197