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. Basic facts
A. The Defendants are married, and the Plaintiff is the birth of Defendant B, and D and E are parents of the Plaintiff and Defendant B, and D died on September 27, 2015.
On April 14, 2006, defendant B 10,000 on April 14, 2006, defendant C 3, 10,000 on May 8, 2006, "4,000 on May 10, 2006, "5,000 on May 10, 200 on June 25, 2006, " 5,000 on June 10, 206,00 on June 10, 200,000 on June 10, 2005, 6,000 on August 10, 200, 7,000 on August 10, 206, 200 on the aggregate of 0,00,000 on August 10, 200, 200 on August 10, 2006, 200 on August 10, 2006;
B. From April 14, 2006 to December 29, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred the total of KRW 88,450,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) from the Nonghyup Bank account (Account Number:F) in the Plaintiff’s name to the Defendants’ account as follows:
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The plaintiff asserted that all of the funds of this case are leased to the defendant couple, and the defendants are jointly obligated to repay them. The defendants asserted that the funds of this case are transferred to the defendants through their own account, and that the defendant Eul, who operated the building materials company "G" in the name of the defendant Eul, newly constructed the housing on the land of the H and I from April 2006 to December 2006 at the request of the defendant Eul, which was owned by the defendant Eul, and received the material cost and construction cost as the material cost and construction cost while remodelling the restaurant operated by the plaintiff. Thus, the plaintiff who managed D's assets, transferred the funds to the defendants through his account, and did not borrow the funds of this case from the plaintiff.
3. Determination
A. In a case where a transfer is made by transferring money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on a variety of legal causes. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that the parties had the intent to agree on a loan for consumption between the parties solely on the fact that the remittance was made.