beta
Text
The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.
Reasons
1. On December 15, 2009, the Plaintiff asserted the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend money under the name of the Defendant’s office purchase fund operated by C by the Defendant’s partner C, and on the same day, lent KRW 25 million to C’s account designated by the Defendant.
Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 25 million and the delay damages.
2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted 25 million won to C's account on December 15, 2009.
In a case where a transfer is made to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as a loan for consumption, a donation, and a repayment. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement between the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the sole basis of the fact that such transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). Even if there is no dispute over the fact that money was given and received between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made has the burden of proving that the Defendant asserted against the Plaintiff.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). Since the Defendant denies the Plaintiff’s assertion regarding the Plaintiff’s loan in this case, the burden of proving that the agreement was made exists is insufficient to acknowledge that the remittance of the said money was based on the Plaintiff’s loan agreement, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.
Rather, according to the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, and 1-2 of the evidence No. 4-1, it is recognized that the defendant was subject to the disposition of non-prosecution by the defendant, in the case where the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant due to the loan fraud, etc.
3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit.