beta
Text
1. The Defendant’s KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 5.2% per annum from May 31, 2012 to December 14, 2015.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff, on January 31, 2012, remitted 10 million won to C, and 10 million won on February 7, 2012, respectively, to C, who was the Defendant’s wife on the date of transfer of each of the above amounts, and C, as it is, remitted each of the above amounts to D.
B. On April 13, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the Defendant; and on April 29, 2013, the Plaintiff received from the Defendant a certificate of borrowing the amount of KRW 20 million with the interest rate of KRW 5.2% per annum on April 13, 2012 on the date of borrowing.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff asserted 1) on January 31, 2012, when the Defendant requested to lend money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff transferred money to the account of C on January 31, 2012 and lent KRW 20 million to the account of C on February 7, 2012, in the sense that C is jointly responsible. (2) The Plaintiff wired money to lend KRW 20 million on April 13, 2012 according to the Defendant’s additional monetary lending demand.
B. Determination 1) On January 31, 2012 and February 7, 2012, the Plaintiff alleged that the amount remitted to C on January 31, 2012 and February 7, 2012 is the amount of lending to the Defendant. However, as shown above, the Plaintiff’s statement of No. 3-1 cannot be trusted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it (see, e.g., evidence Nos. 1, 2-1, 2-2, 3, 5, 6, and 7). In other words, if the amount the Plaintiff remitted to C was the amount of lending to the Defendant, the Plaintiff could have received the above amount of lending at the time of receiving the loan certificate from the Defendant on April 29, 2013. However, even if the Plaintiff did not receive the loan certificate from the Defendant, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any record of the agreement with the Defendant, and even if they did not have any direct conversations to the Defendant, the Plaintiff could have been held liable only to C.