The defendant shall pay 16,194,580 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 28, 2020 to October 13, 2020 and the next day.

Basic Facts

A. From April 21, 2011 to September 23, 2019, the insurance premium of a D company borne by the Defendant as a policyholder was automatically transferred from the Plaintiff’s corporate bank account, and the aggregate amount is KRW 16,194,580.

B. On December 4, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 15,000,00 to the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy Facts, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 16,194,580 and KRW 15,194,580 that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant on December 4, 2013, which the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant on December 4, 2013.

B. While the Defendant living together with the Plaintiff, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s living expenses, and the Plaintiff paid the insurance premium among them.

15,000,000 won was donated to the Defendant while living together with the Plaintiff.

Even if a loan is a loan, the period of commercial extinctive prescription (5 years) has expired.

3. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the total amount of 16,194,580 won of the premiums paid by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid the insurance premium out of the living expenses that the Plaintiff received to the Defendant.

The defendant did not notify the plaintiff to the defendant's family members and received the total amount of KRW 10,679,735 from March 8, 2019 to August 7, 2019. However, according to the evidence No. 5, the total amount of the defendant's medical expenses incurred by the plaintiff was KRW 10,022,03 (the defendant alleged that the plaintiff received approximately KRW 9,00,000 from the defendant's side for medical expenses, but the evidence No. 8 is insufficient to recognize it) cannot be viewed as a ground to refuse to pay the insurance premium in lieu of the above fact.

B. When the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent money to the applicant for the return of the loan even if there is no dispute as to the fact that it was given and received.