beta
Text
The defendant's appeal is dismissed.
Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the defendant.
The purport of the claim and the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. According to the purport of evidence evidence No. 1-3 and evidence No. 1-2 and the whole pleadings and arguments, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million on January 27, 2016, KRW 10 million on April 25, 2016, KRW 10 million on September 20, 2016, and KRW 10 million on September 20, 2016 to each Defendant’s deposit account, and the Defendant transferred KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on May 18, 2018.
2. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff claims the return of the money that he lent to the defendant as above. The defendant asserts that the above money was transferred to the defendant's mother C at the plaintiff's request and delivered it to the defendant's mother C, and the other party who borrowed money from the plaintiff is not the defendant.
3. Generally, who is the party to the contract is a matter of interpretation of the intent of the party involved in the contract.
In a case where there is a different opinion on the interpretation of a juristic act between the parties concerned, the parties’ interpretation should be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules by comprehensively taking into account the content of the juristic act, the motive and background leading up to such juristic act, the purpose to be achieved by the juristic act, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2016Da238212, Jan. 25, 2018). The fact that the Plaintiff had engaged in money transactions with the Defendant’s mother C does not dispute the Plaintiff, and the fact that the Defendant transferred money transactions to C on Jan. 28, 2016 under subparagraph 1-2 and 3 is also acknowledged.
However, as seen earlier, the account received money from the Plaintiff is the Defendant’s account, and according to the purport of Gap’s evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, and Gap’s evidence and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff continued a monetary transaction through Do C and the deposit account from Jan. 2, 2016 to Nov. 2017. On May 12, 2018, the Defendant added a thickness to each month until May 18, 2018 to the Plaintiff.
“Delivery of the text message” and on May 18, 2018.