beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. On January 11, 2006, the plaintiff asserted that he remitted 10 million won to the defendant's deposit account.
Even if the Plaintiff did not lend the said money, the Defendant received the said money without any title and unjustly gained it.
Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 10 million and delay damages.
2. Determination
A. According to the evidence No. 1-7 of the loan claim No. 1-7, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 21,000,000 to the Defendant account on January 11, 2006 is recognized.
However, the above facts and each evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that KRW 10 million out of the above money was a loan to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.
Rather, according to the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant was the children of Eul, the plaintiff's birth, who was only 14 years of age at the time, and the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant's father C by asserting that the amount of remittance of KRW 10 million was a loan from this court under the above court No. 2014Ga7135, Jan. 11, 2006, which was declared by the above court, but appealed against the above judgment of the court of first instance under the court No. 2015Na916, but the appeal against the above judgment of the court of first instance was dismissed, but the judgment of the court of first instance became final and conclusive upon the dismissal of the appeal. Thus, it seems that there was no contractual relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant as the ground for remittance on Jan. 11, 2006.
(On the other hand, the plaintiff can not seek payment of the above money in accordance with the res judicata effect of the above final judgment against C.
As seen earlier, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 21,00,000 to the Defendant’s account on January 11, 2006 is recognized.
However, the fact that the defendant was a minor who was the birth of the plaintiff C, who was only 14 years of age at the time, is as seen earlier, and all the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 2, 3, and 4 are as follows.