logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.11.11 2020나33092
대여금
Text

The judgment of the first instance shall be revoked.

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the plaintiff.

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

Basic Facts

From November 2010, the Plaintiff began to associate with the Defendant and came to be in internal relations, and around October 2014.

On December 12, 2012, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 25 million into the Defendant’s deposit account.

【In the absence of any dispute, the Plaintiff’s assertion of the purport of Gap’s evidence No. 2, the entire pleadings, and the Plaintiff’s assertion of the judgment were lent KRW 25 million to the Defendant on December 12, 2012, and the Defendant paid only KRW 6.5 million among these loans. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18.5 million (=25 million-6.5 million) out of the above loans and delay damages therefrom.

Judgment

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 was jointly made exists is the Plaintiff asserting that the remittance was made based on a loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014). The following circumstances are: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare objective evidence to recognize the lending of money; (b) the remittance of the said money, as alleged by the Plaintiff, was made during the school system due to internal relations with the Defendant, and (c) the Plaintiff visited the Defendant’s residence from time to time during the internal period; (d) the Defendant was a director of a new apartment house at the time of the instant monetary transaction; and (e) the Defendant received the said money and subsequently purchased the said money from a household, director expenses, and living expenses, etc.

arrow