beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's primary and conjunctive claims added at the trial are all dismissed.
2. The plaintiff's appeal is filed.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s assertion ① Although there was no intent or ability to repay in collusion, the Defendants, from around 2005 to around 2015, receive KRW 1,233,492,082 from the Plaintiff as the borrowed name of the living fund, etc. from the Plaintiff, by deceiving the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendants, the joint tortfeasor, are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff the damages amounting to KRW 460,000,000 and the damages for delay.
② From January 5, 2007 to August 25, 2015, K Bank Account (L, M, and N) in the name of the Plaintiff to Defendant C’s account, KRW 572,536,265, the Defendants deposited from June 25, 2007 to the K Bank Account in the name of the Plaintiff from June 25, 2007 to December 31, 2015, KRW 390,428,265, which remains after subtracting KRW 182,108,00,00 from the Defendants deposited into the K Bank Account in the name of the Plaintiff, shall be lent to the Plaintiff for the purpose of living expenses. Therefore, the Defendants jointly and severally (the Defendant expressed his intent to jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff KRW 390,428,265, and damages for delay. If the amount transferred does not constitute the amount of loans, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to return the amount of unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff.
2. The judgment of this Court
A. Even if based on all evidence of the instant case regarding the primary claim, it is insufficient to recognize this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.
B. (1) In a lawsuit seeking the return of a loan on the ancillary claim, the Plaintiff asserts its effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da12280, Jun. 14, 2013). The agreement on a loan for consumption cannot be derived immediately on the sole basis of the following: (a) there is a flow of money, such as the Plaintiff’s assertion; and (b) even if examining all the evidence and circumstances indicated in the instant case, there is insufficient proof on this part.