Rent dispute between lovers... Is it the price of love or money to be returned?

“My ex-lover is asking me to return the things she gave me. Do I really have to return them?”

It is common to see money and goods being exchanged between lovers. The forms vary widely, from everyday living expenses to expenses arising from cohabitation on the premise of marriage. The problem is when the relationship breaks down and one party demands a return of the money. From the perspective of the party requesting return, it may be considered 'money to be returned for granted', but the law is not that simple.

In order for a claim for return of rental money to be accepted in a civil lawsuit, the plaintiff who filed it must prove the fact of the rental. It is difficult to objectively recognize the intention to lend based on simple details of the remittance, such as records of remittances to the other party, transaction details, and deposit/withdrawal accounts. In order to recognize that a rental contract has been established, substantive data regarding agreement of intent are required, such as an IOU or other equivalent document, a text message or email specifying a promise to repay, or a recording of a request for return or statement of repayment.

However, in the case of romantic relationships, unlike general business relationships, due to the nature of the relationship, it is rare for there to be a clear contract or IOU regarding the background of money exchange. Therefore, the court also comprehensively examines the circumstances and relationship between the parties to determine whether the nature of the money belongs to a loan or a gift.

In fact, this same issue was at the core of a case I was in charge of. While the defendant was dating the plaintiff, he received approximately 58 million won from the plaintiff on several occasions. However, when the relationship ended, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit demanding its return. At the time, the plaintiff claimed that the defendant borrowed money in the name of repaying the loan. However, there was no direct evidence to prove the establishment of the contract, such as a rental contract or loan certificate.

First of all, the author consistently emphasized the basic principle of civil litigation that ‘the person who claims must prove’ and thoroughly shifted the burden of proof to the plaintiff. It was also pointed out that between lovers, money is often provided without any special conditions. At the same time, he persuasively argued that it is reasonable to view this situation as a gift rather than a loan. In particular, the plaintiff effectively refuted the plaintiff's claim by emphasizing that additional money was paid even though the defendant had not repaid the money after the plaintiff provided it, and that the plaintiff showed off his financial resources and said he wanted to help the defendant.

As a result, the court judged the plaintiff's 'rental' claim to be insufficiently proven and dismissed the claim, freeing the defendant from a heavy financial burden.

Attorney Kim Young-min of Daeryun Law Firm said, “When a dispute over rental money occurs between lovers like this, you should not approach it only with emotional judgment. You must fully understand the relevant legal principles and establish an evidence collection strategy with a cool-headed judgment from the beginning of the case.” He added, “Only by organizing the facts for each issue and constructing a logical argument through the credibility of the parties’ statements and organic interpretation of the circumstantial evidence can you reduce unnecessary disputes and defend yourself from legal liability.”

[Global Epic CP Lee Soo-hwan / lsh@globalepic.co.kr]

[View full article]
Loan dispute between lovers... Is it the price of love or money to be returned? (Shortcut)