beta
Text
1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to pay below shall be revoked.
Defendant.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 28.5 million to the Seobu Agricultural Cooperative Account (F) in the name of E (hereinafter “instant payment”).
B. E (hereinafter “the deceased”) died on October 6, 2018, and Defendant B, his spouse, inherited the deceased’s property as the 3/7 share of inheritance, and Defendant C and D, their children, respectively, inherited the deceased’s property as the 2/7 share of inheritance.
[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1-11 and 44 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings
2. The assertion and judgment
A. A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) upon the request of G around May 2018, the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 30 million to the Deceased for 2.5% per month interest and 2 months for the lending period. On May 30, 2018, the Plaintiff transferred to the Deceased KRW 28.5 million after deducting KRW 1.5 million interest from the prior-paid interest. Therefore, the Defendants, the heir of the Deceased, are liable to pay to the Plaintiff each money as stated in the purport of the claim distributed the above loans and interest within the scope of the Interest Limitation Act, as well as damages for delay. (2) The Plaintiff is merely a person who delivered the instant payment at the Plaintiff’s request, and the Plaintiff cannot be deemed to have paid the instant payment in light of the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Deceased, G, and Suwon District Court Decision 2019Na86075 (hereinafter “Separate loans”).
B. 1) Determination 1) Even if there is no dispute as to the existence of a monetary loan contract between the parties, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof as to the fact of the loan when the Defendant contests against the Defendant.
(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). Meanwhile, in cases where a person who executes a contract did a legal act under the name of another person, is a party to the contract, the person who is either the actor or the nominal holder is the party to the contract.