beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Summary of the parties' assertion
A. The Plaintiff’s mother requested the Plaintiff to lend money due to the lack of the deposit money for the notified telecom to be operated by the Defendant through C. The Plaintiff lent KRW 56 million to the Defendant on June 17, 2016, and thereafter, the Defendant repaid KRW 35 million out of the above loan to the Plaintiff on November 11, 2016.
In addition, on January 3, 2017, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant on the part of January 3, 2017 by having the Defendant paid money to the extent that the Plaintiff is urgently needed.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 51 million [the remaining loan amounting to KRW 21 million (= KRW 56 million - KRW 35 million) as of June 17, 2016] and delay damages therefrom.
B. The Plaintiff and C have agreed to respectively invest money (Plaintiff 56 million won, C84 million won, and C84 million won) in the name of the Defendant to conduct business registration and to conduct the publicly notified franchise business. The Defendant lent to C the name of business registration and the account in the name of the Defendant. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 56 million to the account in the name of the Defendant’s name. The Plaintiff was an investment in the said publicly notified franchise business, and the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35 million transferred from the Defendant on November 11, 2016 to a third party and collected part of the Plaintiff’s investments. 2) The Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million, which was transferred to the account in the name of the Defendant’s name, to the Plaintiff on January 3, 2017.
2. Determination
A. In a case where a remittance is made through the transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, etc. as to the remaining loan amount of KRW 21 million as of June 17, 2016, the remittance may be made based on a variety of legal causes. As such, the party asserting that the remittance is a loan under a monetary loan loan contract with the person who receives the remittance shall bear the burden of proof (see Supreme Court Decision 201Da1548, Jul. 10, 2014).