beta
Text
1. The Defendant: KRW 14,965,914 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from June 11, 2015 to January 12, 2016; and
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (1) and C are married couple on November 10, 2002 and the marriage report was completed on January 6, 2006, and the Defendant is a couple C.
(2) C died on September 8, 2014, and his heir is the Plaintiff, parents, D, and E.
B. On July 7, 2005, C transferred KRW 9,99,200 from the Plaintiff’s Han Bank F account, KRW 10,000,30 from G account, and KRW 19,99,50 from G account to the Defendant’s account, and leased KRW 40,002,100 in total from one’s own account to the Defendant’s account.
(2) C transferred KRW 35,268,50 on July 29, 2005, KRW 5,000 on September 30, 2005, KRW 5,001,30 on September 30, 2005, and KRW 10,000 on March 9, 2009 to the Defendant’s account, and lent KRW 35,268,50 on a total to the Defendant.
(3) The Defendant repaid 40,350,000 won to C from August 18, 2005 to July 5, 2009.
[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the amount transferred from the Plaintiff’s account
A. (1) Determination as to the Plaintiff’s primary assertion (1) since KRW 19,99,50, which was transferred from the Plaintiff’s primary assertion to the Defendant’s account, concluded a loan for consumption with the Plaintiff and the Defendant lent to the Defendant, the Defendant shall pay the above amount and delay damages to the Plaintiff.
(2) The fact that KRW 19,99,500 was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant’s account does not conflict between the parties.
However, as seen above, in light of the fact that the above amount was transferred to the defendant in the account of C and the fact that the above amount was transferred to the defendant in the account of C and the source, the defendant, and C, the above amount is deemed to have been leased to the defendant by using the plaintiff's account, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that C had concluded a separate loan contract for consumption with the plaintiff. Thus,
B. The Plaintiff’s conjunctive assertion was determined (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion inherited C’s loan claim against the Defendant.