beta
Text
1. The part of the judgment of the first instance against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. The Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant who worked at a singing shop on January 2019, and became aware of the fact that he was in school with the Defendant from around that time to July of the same year.
B. On January 31, 2019, the Plaintiff disbursed KRW 26,95,689 in total by remitting money to the Defendant’s account or to the account designated by the Defendant from around that time to July of the same year, or settling the Defendant’s mobile phone charges and the purchase price of clothing with his/her credit card in lieu of the Defendant’s mobile phone charges and the purchase price of clothing.
[Grounds for Recognition] A without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 5 through 11, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, video (including branch numbers, if any) and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The party's assertion and judgment
A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff is a loan that the plaintiff remitted money to the defendant, and the part that was settled by credit card was deceiving the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 26,995,689 paid by the plaintiff due to the return of the loan or the compensation for losses caused by tort, and the delayed damages.
The argument is asserted.
The defendant asserts that the plaintiff did not have a duty to return because the plaintiff remitted money with the intention of donation or paid the price of goods in lieu of the intention of donation for the purpose of the defendant's fraud.
B. (1) Determination (1) Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that money was given and received between the parties, a monetary transaction may be conducted based on a variety of legal causes. Thus, the fact that money was a loan under a monetary consumption loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant must be proved by the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014, etc.). (2) First, in regard to KRW 3 million, which the plaintiff remitted to the defendant's account on January 31, 2019, the defendant loaned to the plaintiff and transferred the said money to the plaintiff.