beta
Text
The defendant shall calculate 12,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from May 13, 2020 to the day of full payment.
Reasons
1. Facts of recognition;
A. On May 15, 2019, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff’s husband C’s husband’s account to the Defendant’s account.
B. On June 21, 2019, the Plaintiff leased KRW 55 million from the above C account to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “instant loan”), and agreed to the interest rate at 24% per annum.
C. The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 43 million in total, including KRW 30 million on August 19, 2019 and KRW 13 million on September 24, 2019, among the instant loans from the Defendant.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1-4, witness D's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent the Plaintiff’s total amount of KRW 85 million to the Defendant and received KRW 43 million from the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 42 million to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant was transferred from the Plaintiff on May 15, 2019 is not a loan, but an investment in the Effective Feed Business promoted by the Defendant. The Defendant repaid KRW 43 million to the Plaintiff out of the instant loan, in addition to KRW 43 million, the Defendant paid the remainder of KRW 5 million.
B. Determination 1) In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account as of May 15, 2019, etc., the said 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 was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement was jointly carried out is asserted against the Plaintiff that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). (B) In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, the health unit and the foregoing evidence, and Party A.