2015Da51364 Loans

A

B

Seoul High Court Decision 2014Na43849 Decided June 4, 2015

December 24, 2015

The part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the instant claim that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 339,00,000 over 11 times, such as the loan details stated in the attached Table of the lower judgment, and sought the return thereof, by recognizing the loan details Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 10, and received the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the lower court did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that there was no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant on September 5, 2013, 2013 as loans No. 4-5, Dec. 20, 2012.

2. However, it is difficult to accept the above determination by the court below for the following reasons.

A. According to the records, the Plaintiff leased funds to the Defendant’s account after receiving a request from the Defendant who jointly operates the hospital from the Defendant and C to transfer the funds of the hospital to the Defendant’s account. The Defendant used four national bank accounts (Account Number: K, L, M, and N) in the name of “B (D Hospital)” in relation to the operation of the hospital. However, the Defendant submitted all the details of deposits and the details of the deposits in relation to the three accounts among the above accounts to the lower court as evidence, but failed to submit them as evidence only as to the K account. Furthermore, when examining the contents of the deposit in the above national bank K account (Evidence No. 5-1 of the evidence No. 5), the account balance (Compared to the transaction amount and the balance) increase in KRW 80,000 on September 5, 2013.

B. In the same way, the court below should have clearly clarified the balance of the account in the above withdrawal statement in relation to the increase in the amount of the Plaintiff’s claim at the time of remittance of the loan, and then considered whether the Plaintiff’s loan was actually paid or not. However, the court below determined that the loan was not paid pursuant to the table Nos. 4 and 11 of the loan details attached to the court below merely based on the reasons stated in its reasoning. Such judgment below erred by exceeding the bounds of the principle of free evaluation of evidence in violation of logical and empirical rules, or by failing to exhaust all necessary deliberations, which affected the conclusion of the judgment. The Plaintiff’s appeal pointing this out has merit.

3. Therefore, the part of the lower judgment against the Plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the lower court for further proceedings consistent with this Opinion. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices on the bench.

Justices Kim Jae-sik et al.

Justices Lee Sang-hoon

Justices Cho Jong-hee

Chief Justice Park Sang-ok