beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The parties' assertion
A. As the Plaintiff alleged on May 23, 2012 transferred KRW 100 million to the Defendant’s deposit account, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 100 million and damages for delay.
B. Although the Plaintiff asserted that he remitted KRW 100 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant, the Defendant did not borrow the said money.
2. Since a loan for consumption is 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 the same kind, quality, and quantity (Article 598 of the Civil Act). As to the above point, there must be an agreement between the parties.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the said remittance may result in various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, custody, or entrustment of delivery, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a mutual consent of the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made. The Plaintiff asserts that the said remittance was made due to a loan for consumption. The burden of proving that there was such mutual consent is the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said remittance was made due to a loan for consumption.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861 Decided July 26, 2012). The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the deposit account in the name of the Defendant is no dispute between the parties.
However, in full view of the evidence evidence Nos. 2 through 6 and 8 and the purport of the entire argument, the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s husband C, from October 201 to February 2013, may be found to have conducted business with the Defendant’s penal D and E, and have made money transactions from time to time with their own account. However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any monetary transaction other than the instant remittance transaction, and there was no loan certificate between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, and the said money was made orally.