beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendant (appointed party) and the appointed party are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff and the Appointor C (hereinafter “Appointed”) are simplified and the Defendant (Appointed Party; hereinafter “Defendant”) are children of the Appointor.
B. On October 8, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 68,000,00 to the Defendant.
C. The Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 1,950,00 on November 30, 2018, KRW 1,920,00 on December 16, 2018, KRW 19,010,495 on May 19, 2019, and KRW 7,91,728 on June 1, 2019.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 68,00,000 to the Defendant as business funds, and the selector jointly and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to borrow money.
Defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,08,272 (i.e., KRW 68,00,000 - KRW 7,911,728) and damages for delay.
B. Determination 1) A loan for consumption is a contract established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such ownership in such kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). It is natural that there is an agreement between the parties as to the above point (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270, Nov. 11, 2010). In the event of transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the transfer may be based on various legal causes, such as investment, loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc., so it cannot be readily concluded solely on the fact that such transfer was made. (See, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such transfer was made on the ground that the Plaintiff’s loan for consumption was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da2197.