beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) lent a sum of KRW 19 million to the Defendant KRW 20 million on November 29, 2016; (b) KRW 39 million on a yearly basis; and (c) without having due date set; and (d) received KRW 510,00 from the Defendant the payment of interest on the said loan on June 21, 2017.
As of June 21, 2017, interest on the instant money (i.e., KRW 1,524,656 (i.e., KRW 963,00 for loans of KRW 19,000 on June 17, 2016) (i.e., KRW 561,643), interest on KRW 20,000 for loans of KRW 19,000 as of November 29, 2016; and (ii) interest on KRW 5,10,000 for loans of KRW 1,524,656 (= KRW 1,524,656), which remains after deducting interest paid by the Defendant from the said money.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay interest or delay damages from June 22, 2017, which is the day following the day when the Defendant paid interest to the Plaintiff (i.e., KRW 39 million as of June 21, 2017) and KRW 39 million as of June 21, 2017, which is the day when the Defendant paid interest to the Plaintiff.
2. In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the parties to a loan for consumption had the intent to make a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such transfer had been made.
(see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was received, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the party leased the money had the burden of proving that the Defendant lent the money.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). According to the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the statement in subparagraph 1-3 of the evidence No. 1-3, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the Defendant’s account KRW 39 million, totaling KRW 19 million on June 17, 2016, and KRW 20 million on November 29, 2016, to the Defendant’s account.
However, above.