beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. According to the evidence evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 43,650,000 to the Defendant on July 27, 2007, and KRW 20,000,000 on December 17, 2007.
2. Determination
A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff, without interest agreement, lent to the defendant the above 63,650,000 won under an agreement to repay at any time when the plaintiff requests payment.
In this regard, the defendant asserts that the above money is not a loan but a discount of promissory notes issued by the defendant's working company, and only a deposit is made by the defendant's passbook.
B. The judgment of a loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money and other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such kind, quality and quantity as such (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As such, there is a mutual agreement between the parties as to the above point.
Meanwhile, in a case where money is remitted to another person’s deposit account, such remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loans for consumption, donation, repayment, custody, or consignment of delivery. Therefore, solely on the fact that such remittance was made, it cannot be readily concluded that the parties to a loan for consumption had the intent to agree with respect to a loan for consumption, and the burden of proving that the remittance was made with such intent is the Plaintiff asserting that the remittance was made based on a loan for consumption.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The Plaintiff asserted that the said money is a loan, but the Defendant asserts that the said money is not a loan, so it is deemed that the Plaintiff is responsible for proving that the said money is a loan, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that it is a loan.
3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.