beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the cause of claim
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is from March 13, 2017 to the same year.
4. Until August 18, 200, the Defendant lent KRW 75,000 in total to the Defendant’s account by means of remitting KRW 22,250,000 among them.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 52,750,000 (=75,000,000 - 22,250,000) and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) Where a transfer was made to another person’s deposit account, the transfer may be made based on various causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, and simple delivery. Thus, even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the existence of the amount of money, the Plaintiff asserts that the cause of the receipt of money is a loan for consumption, whereas, if the Defendant asserts that it was received due to a loan for consumption, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that it was received due to the loan for consumption (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014).
4. The fact that the defendant remitted the sum of KRW 75,00,000 to the defendant's account until 18. There is no dispute between the parties.
However, the defendant argues to the effect that the above money is not borrowed from the plaintiff, but is sent to C through the account in the name of the defendant for business reasons. The defendant is not the defendant. The following circumstances acknowledged in addition to the purport of the statement and the entire arguments in Gap evidence No. 3, i.e., the plaintiff failed to submit objective evidence, such as a disposition document that confirms that each of the above money deposited into the account in the name of the defendant was paid to the defendant as a loan to the defendant. ② The plaintiff was issued a certificate of borrowing only from D, which is registered as the inside director by the representative, and ③ the plaintiff is the person who has no direct fact until the loan was made or the lawsuit in this case was filed.