[Bucheon Loan Claim Attorney Favorable Judgment Case] Bucheon Loan Claim Attorney's Assistance Results in Dismissal of the Plaintiff's Claim in a Loan Return Lawsuit

The following are the circumstances of the case as identified by the Bucheon loan claim attorney through consultation with the client.

The client was in a former romantic relationship with the plaintiff.

During the relationship, the plaintiff transferred to the client, on several occasions, money amounting to about 30 million won, and this was intended to help the client's business.

After breaking up with the client, however, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit again demanding the return of all of the transferred money, claiming that it had all been a loan or a gift conditioned on the relationship.

By arguing that the transferred money and other funds received from the plaintiff were not a loan, the client requested the assistance of the Bucheon loan claim attorney in order to have the plaintiff's loan return lawsuit dismissed.

▣ A Former Partner's Demand to Return Money: Must It Be Returned?

Under the law, gifts exchanged between romantic partners are regarded as a gift arising from a relationship of goodwill.

Because a gift means “giving without consideration,” there is no obligation to return it simply because the parties have broken up.

No return may be claimed for a gift that has already been performed, and the amount is not a variable either.

In the case of a ‘conditional gift,’ however, the situation is different.

A representative example of a conditional gift is engagement gifts. Under the precedents, engagement gifts are a gift subject to a condition subsequent of ‘the failure of the marriage to be formed.’ (Supreme Court 96Da5506)

Accordingly, if the engagement is broken off, the condition is triggered, so a return may be claimed.

In order to obtain a return from the person to whom the gift was given when the condition is not satisfied, one must be able to prove that the condition was not satisfied.

The Supreme Court has held that “exceptionally, where the gift qualifies as a conditional gift, it may be returned depending on whether the condition is fulfilled, and the burden of proof as to the existence of the condition rests on the person who asserts it.” (See Supreme Court Judgment 2006Da35766, decided November 24, 2006, and others.)

The plaintiff claimed that the client had transferred the money on the condition of marriage to the plaintiff and that it therefore qualified as a ‘conditional gift.’

However, the attorney argued that, because the plaintiff presented no evidence whatsoever to prove that such a condition existed, there was no obligation to return the money.

The client never said that the relationship would not end if the plaintiff gave money,

nor did the client say that he would pursue a serious relationship with marriage in mind.

Accordingly, the attorney argued that this was not a contract premised on deceiving the plaintiff or inducing a mistake.

As with the client above, to argue that the money was not a conditional loan, the burden of proving that the condition was not satisfied rests on the plaintiff.

Accordingly, emphasizing that the evidence presented by the plaintiff is not valid can be said to be the core of the trial.

If you need legal assistance in a situation similar to the case above, you may entrust your case to the Bucheon loan claim attorney at Daeryun Law Firm at any time.