beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was requested by the Defendant and lent the Defendant a total of KRW 61 million between July 25, 201 and January 20, 2012. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 61 million and delay damages.
B. Since the payment of money to another person can be made through various causes, such as a loan for consumption, an investment, and a donation, it cannot be readily concluded that there was the unity of the parties with respect to a loan for consumption of money solely on the sole basis of having received money between the parties
In addition, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties gave and received money, the plaintiff's assertion that the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof against the plaintiff who asserts that the loan was lent.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). The instant case is health care unit, the Plaintiff’s KRW 30 million on July 25, 201, and the same year
9.1.1.1. 18 million won and the sum of KRW 61.1 million on January 20, 2012, were remitted to each account under the name of the defendant to the bank account in the name of the defendant, although there is no dispute between the parties. However, in light of the fact that the plaintiff was present at the date of pleading in this case and the defendant did not prepare a disposal document, such as a certificate of borrowing, and that the plaintiff stated that he did not specify the maturity and interest, the above recognition alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 61 million to the defendant, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.
Therefore, the plaintiff's claim under the premise that the above 61 million won, which the plaintiff remitted to the defendant, was a loan to the defendant, is without merit.
2. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.