beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.
2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.
Reasons
1. Basic facts
A. On August 26, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 15,000,00 to the deposit account in the name of the deceased B (hereinafter “the deceased”).
B. After that, the Deceased died on January 1, 2017. On February 10, 2017, the Plaintiff received a decision of provisional seizure (Seoul Central District Court 2017Kadan31345) regarding the real estate in the name of the Deceased on the claim amounting to KRW 15,00,000,000.
C. Meanwhile, the deceased’s inheritor renounced inheritance to the deceased, and D applied for appointment of inherited property management as Seoul Family Court No. 2017-Ma8855, and on February 9, 2018, the above court decided to appoint the Defendant as an administrator of inherited property of the deceased, and the above decision became final and conclusive around that time.
[Reasons for Recognition] Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings
2. Determination on the cause of the claim
A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent KRW 15,000,000 to the mother-friendly E’s senior job-friendly deceased on August 25, 2014 at the rate of 5% per annum. However, since the deceased died without paying the above loan obligation, the Defendant, an administrator of inherited property of the deceased, is liable to pay the Plaintiff the above loan obligation amounting to KRW 15,00,000,00 and delay damages.
B. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 15,00,000 to the deposit account in the deceased’s name on August 26, 2013, and the Plaintiff’s provisional attachment of real estate in the deceased’s name with the claim amount was as seen earlier.
① However, the foregoing provisional seizure decision was merely conducted after the death of the deceased, and the materials submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to understand the specific developments leading up to remitting the above KRW 15,00,00 to the deceased. ② The deceased did not pay interest on the above money to the Plaintiff; ② there was no evidence supporting the fact that the Plaintiff had demanded the deceased to pay the principal and interest of the loan directly before the death of the deceased; ③ the testimony of the witness F of this court is the dialogue between the Plaintiff’s mother E and the deceased.