Case assisted by a civil specialist attorney | Defendant in a claim for return of a loan, fully defended

A lawsuit for the return of a loan is a legal procedure in which a person who has lent money to another and has not been repaid within the agreed repayment period demands the return of the money from the borrower.

As a civil claim, a loan is generally subject to a ten-year extinctive prescription (Article 162 of the Civil Act), and if the right is not exercised within that period, the claim is extinguished.

In such cases, the following types of evidence are primarily used to prove the existence of the loan.

Key Supporting Evidence

The crux of a lawsuit for the return of a loan is whether an actual loan for consumption contract existed.

The mere fact that money was paid cannot, by itself, conclusively establish a 'loan,' and the intent to borrow and an agreement to repay must be proven to have existed.

In particular, money provided within a cohabitation or common-law (de facto) marriage relationship is generally likely to be interpreted as a contribution toward shared living expenses or housing funds, so in many cases it is difficult to have it recognized as a loan.

Therefore, for the plaintiff to claim a 'loan,' clear evidence such as a specific contract, a loan certificate, and a promise of repayment is required.

The civil specialist attorney focused on this point and identified the following key issues.

The civil specialist attorney first emphasized that the plaintiff and the defendant were in a common-law (de facto) marriage relationship, and highlighted that the financial transactions that occurred were not a simple loan but rather had the strong character of a contribution of expenses for shared living.

In other words, on the basis of the trend in case law that monetary expenditures for the purpose of housing funds or sharing living expenses are difficult to regard as a loan contract, the attorney legally rebutted the plaintiff's claim.

The civil specialist attorney analyzed, one by one, the remittance records, the proof of home-appliance purchases, and the KakaoTalk conversations submitted by the plaintiff.

In that process, the attorney pointed out that no expressions premised on a loan or any promise of repayment existed, and instead organized the materials so that the context of a reasonable sharing of shared living costs would become apparent.

Through this, the attorney guided the court to clearly understand the nature of the use of the funds.

It was also necessary to prepare a strategy for the possibility that the court might examine whether a portion of the amount constituted a loan.

Accordingly, the civil specialist attorney constructed a defense argument that the claim was difficult to establish legally, given the absence of any agreement on a repayment date or a loan certificate.

This case is one in which it was possible to logically rebut the plaintiff's claims by comprehensively reviewing the nature of the actual financial transactions, the existence of the intent to borrow and a repayment agreement, and the distinctive features of the relationship.

Through its dedicated consultation attorney system, Daeryun Law Firm precisely analyzes a case from the earliest stage and assigns a dedicated attorney for each matter to establish a tailored response strategy.

If you are in a situation where financial or credit-related harm is a concern due to a civil lawsuit for a loan, please 🔗schedule a legal consultation and entrust your case to us.