beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff respectively lent KRW 500,000,000 to the Defendant around December 1999, and KRW 50,000,000 around 201.
B. On February 21, 2007, from the account under the name of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”), the Defendant actually operated, KRW 1,100,000,000 was transferred from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the account under the Plaintiff’s name. On February 22, 2007, the following day was transferred from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the account under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant money”).
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination
A. On February 22, 2007, the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) lent the instant money to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said loan amount of KRW 1,100,000,000 and damages for delay. 2) The Defendant’s argument that the instant money is claimed by the Defendant is in order to raise funds to purchase KRW 33,333 shares of D owned by the Plaintiff’s institutional investors in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) operated by the Defendant, upon request of the Plaintiff by the Defendant, return the amount of KRW 1,100,000,000 transferred to the Plaintiff on February 21, 2007, through a deposit account in the Defendant’s name. The Defendant is not the amount borrowed from the Plaintiff.
B. Determination 1) Where a transfer was made to another person’s deposit account, the remittance may be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, and simple delivery. Thus, even if there is no dispute as to the existence of the amount of money between the parties, the Plaintiff asserts that the cause of the receipt of money is a loan for consumption, while, if the Defendant asserts that it was received through a loan for consumption, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it was received through a loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014).