beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) lent KRW 5,00,000 on April 16, 2016 to Defendant B; (b) KRW 3,000,000 on April 18, 2016; (c) KRW 5,000,000 on April 26, 2016; and (d) KRW 10,000,000 on April 29, 2016 to Defendant B’s account in the name of Defendant C, each of the said amounts, at the Defendant’s request.
Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to return the above loan amounting to KRW 23,00,000 to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B to return the above loan to the Plaintiff.
2. Determination
A. The relevant legal doctrine 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). Thus, it is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.
(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, such remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement has been reached is asserted against the party that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.
B. According to the reasoning of the evidence No. 1, No. 1, and No. 2 of the judgment as to the claim against Defendant B, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant C’s account on April 16, 2016, and KRW 3,000,000 on April 18, 2016, and KRW 5,000,000 on April 26, 2016, and KRW 10,000,000 on April 29, 2016, it is recognized that the above fact alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the above remittance to Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. 2) Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is actually Defendant B.