The nature of a loan for consumption under the Civil Act and the receipt of money

A loan for consumption under the Civil Act takes effect 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. Thus, a loan for consumption is not established only when the borrower has to receive money, etc. in reality or to acquire economic benefits such as actual revenues.

Article 598 of the Civil Act

Supreme Court Decision 65Da2337 delivered on January 25, 1966, 4294Sang88 delivered on February 15, 1962

Cho Ho-Hy Mutual Savings Bank

Shin Dong-ho Defendants (Attorney Seo-ho et al., Counsel for the defendant-appellant)

Busan High Court Decision 89Na7948 delivered on October 24, 1990

All appeals are dismissed.

The costs of appeal shall be assessed against the defendants.

1. We examine the defendants' ground of appeal No. 1 by the defendant-appellant.

A loan for consumption under the Civil Act is an agreement that one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money and other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the same kind, quality, and quantity, which takes effect. As such, a loan for consumption is not established only when the borrower has to receive money, etc. in reality or obtain economic benefits such as the actual amount of money. Although the judgment of the court below did not have actually acquired the loan, it is erroneous in the misapprehension of the legal principles as to the nature of the object of the loan for consumption, which is recognized as the establishment of a loan for consumption between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, even though the court below did not have actually acquired the loan by Defendant Shin Dong-dong, Shin-chul,

Meanwhile, upon examining the evidence established by the court below in accordance with the records, the court below was just in finding the fact that a monetary lending contract was established between the plaintiff and the defendants, such as the time of original judgment, and there is no error of misconception of facts in violation of the cooking and empirical rules as stated in

2. The Defendants’ ground of appeal Nos. 2 and Defendant Kim Jong-ro, Counsel for the defendant-appellant shall also be examined.

According to the reasoning of the judgment below, the court below rejected the evidence corresponding to the defendant Kim Jong-ro's claim for reimbursement and rejected the remaining evidence submitted by the defendant alone as it is insufficient to recognize the above claim for reimbursement. In light of the records, the court below's above judgment is acceptable and there is no error of law of misunderstanding facts as to the violation of the rules of evidence or incomplete deliberation, such as the theory of lawsuit. This issue is without merit.

3. Therefore, all appeals are dismissed, and the costs of appeal are assessed against the losing party. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating judges.

Justices Song Man-man (Presiding Justice)