beta
Text
1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.
2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.
Reasons
1. Determination as to the claim
A. The party’s assertion that the Plaintiff wired the total amount of KRW 120 million to Defendant C’s financial account, including KRW 30 million on December 11, 2015; KRW 80 million on March 11, 2016; and KRW 120 million on March 11, 2016; and Defendant B wired the amount of KRW 20 million to Defendant B’s financial account on September 8, 2016. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendants wired the said money to operate as a member of the Defendant C’s financial account (including the virtual number) is either disputed between the parties, or recognized by the evidence No. 1 (including the virtual number). The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the money to the Defendant C’s financial account. Defendant B, the above KRW 20 million, and the Plaintiff’s donation and investment of KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s financial account, not the Plaintiff’s share borrowed from the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff’s share of KRW 1,00,00,00.
B. (1) Even though there is no dispute over the fact that the parties are able to receive money, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving money is a monetary loan for consumption, and the defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to a loan for consumption if it is disputed the cause of receiving money.
(see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In addition, where it is not clear whether the Plaintiff’s account transfer is subject to a monetary loan due to the failure to prepare a contract, loan certificate, etc. between the parties, it shall be reasonably interpreted in accordance with logical and empirical rules and the common sense of society by taking into account all the circumstances, including the relationship between the parties, the process and motive of receiving money by means of account transfer, the purpose and genuine intent of the parties, transaction practices, etc.
(2) No dispute exists between the parties on the basis of the foregoing legal doctrine, or entry of Gap evidence Nos. 2, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 9.