beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination on the grounds for a claim
A. Since the sum of the money remitted from the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name and the money reverted to the Defendant, as shown in the attached Table stating the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, total of KRW 44.8 million was leased to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff.
B. A loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such ownership in the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). It is natural that the other party's intent on the above point must be jointly formed.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010).
In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged as a whole by comprehensively taking into account each entry in the evidence Nos. 3 through 18 of the plate B (including each number), ① the time when the Plaintiff and the Defendant had traded money related to the Defendant as shown in the attached Table, the time when the Plaintiff had been maintaining a chain of interest as shown in the attached Table, ② the Defendant is dissatisfied with the Plaintiff’s claim on the Plaintiff’s loan regarding the developments leading up to the transfer of money as indicated in the attached Table (the Defendant’s preparatory document as of September 20, 2018), ③ the documents such as a loan certificate, cash storage certificate, etc., which can be known that each amount of money listed in the attached Table was leased, are not verified (in light of the truth or content, it is evident that the evidence No. 1 cannot serve as the basis for the said assertion). In full view of the following circumstances, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the loan for consumption was established.
The Plaintiff appears to have asserted that the Defendant unjust enrichment of KRW 5 million out of KRW 8 million of the amount of tax refund of July 13, 2017, in attached Table No. 2017. However, the Plaintiff’s claim and the cause of the claim of October 19, 2018.