beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On March 2016, the Plaintiff attended the Defendant as a member of the same church, but from May 20 of the same year.
B. On June 21, 2017, the Plaintiff issued to the Defendant one cashier’s checks representing five million won per face value and two cashier’s checks representing one million won per face value. From May 10 to December 6, 2018, the Plaintiff wired KRW 40 million in total to the bank account opened in the name of the Defendant E Bank from each bank account opened in C and C under the name of the Plaintiff from May 10 to December 6, 2018.
[Reasons for Recognition] Uncontentious Facts, Gap evidence 2 through 4, Gap evidence 6 through 8, Gap's order to submit financial transaction information to Gap corporation and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff associates with the Defendant during the period from 2016 to 2018, lent KRW 11 million to the Defendant, and donated KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff on the condition that the Plaintiff was not able to marry, on condition that the Plaintiff was not able to marry, and eventually, was not married with the Plaintiff. As such, the Defendant ought to return to the Plaintiff the said loan amount of KRW 11 million and the donation amount of KRW 40 million.
B. Determination 1) First, we examine the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent KRW 11 million to the Defendant. Since the act of paying money to another person may be conducted according to various causes, such as loan for consumption, investment, gift, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties solely on the fact that money was given and received between the parties. Even if there was no dispute as to the fact that money was given and received between the parties, if the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proof as to the fact of lending (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). However, the Plaintiff, on April 20, 2017, issued a cashier’s check with a face value of KRW 4 million to the Defendant and lent it.