beta
Text
1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.
2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.
3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. The plaintiff asserts that since he lent KRW 2,00,000 to the defendant on November 2, 2006, the defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 2,00,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.
In the event of a transfer of money 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 among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the sole basis of the fact that such transfer was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement has been jointly made exists is against the person who asserts that the remittance was made based on a loan for consumption.
(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). In full view of the description of evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 2,00,000 to the Cbank account in the name of the Defendant on November 2, 2006.
However, the following circumstances revealed by the statements in the evidence Nos. 2 and 7, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the co-defendant D of the first instance trial are in a prison relationship and the Defendant is in a position of D. The Plaintiff’s transfer of money over 14 times from November 2, 2006 to November 12, 2009 cannot be ruled out if all the money was transferred to the account in the name of D was actually transferred to D, and the money was actually transferred to the Defendant’s name cannot be ruled out. ② there is no objective material to confirm whether the money transferred to the Defendant is the borrowed money, or is the name of the donated money paid between the Defendant and his family; ③ there is no content to determine the repayment period or interest rate of KRW 200,000,000, and ④ it appears that the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to the Defendant rather than the Plaintiff’s transfer of money to D in the process of settlement of accounts under the premise that most of his/her family members were repaid.