beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. From the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account, KRW 6 million and KRW 4 million in total were remitted from December 17, 2008 to the Defendant’s account.
B. On December 23, 2008, KRW 5 million was remitted from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account, and on December 25, 2008, KRW 5050,000 was remitted from the Defendant’s account to the Plaintiff’s account.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim
A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) Upon the defendant's request that only 20 days be used and returned, the plaintiff lent 10 million won on December 17, 2008 to the plaintiff's claim, and if the plaintiff additionally lent 5 million won to the above 10 million won, the plaintiff lent 5 million won on December 23, 2008 to the defendant's statement that he will pay 10 million won with the above 10 million won. Since the defendant paid 5 million won on December 25, 2008, he is obligated to pay 10 million won with the remaining loan. 2) The defendant's argument that he was living together with the plaintiff, and in the process, C used the plaintiff's account.
In other words, C has used the Plaintiff’s name account and son’s name account together with the Plaintiff’s name account, and made cash transactions with the Defendant. The cash transactions between the Defendant and C have been completed.
5,051,600 won (or 5,000,000 won) remitted to the Plaintiff’s account on December 25, 2008 is also a repayment for a monetary transaction with C and is not a repayment for a loan to the Plaintiff.
B. As to the facts acknowledged above, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 10 million and KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account on December 17, 2008, and the Plaintiff loaned this to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant asserted that the above transfer was not a Plaintiff but a monetary transaction with C, and the Defendant did not assert any other name than the loan, and the monetary transaction with C does not have any obligation due to repayment, settlement, etc.