Gumi Attorney Consultation | Investment Fund Recovery Lawsuit: Full Recovery Obtained Through Daeryun's Assistance Despite the Absence of a Loan Certificate

The clients who came for this Gumi attorney consultation were a married couple.

The wife’s middle school classmate had recommended that she invest.

The classmate (hereinafter the defendant) reportedly persuaded her with the claim that “rather than investing in stocks, lending him money and receiving monthly interest would yield greater earnings.”

Deceived by this, the wife lent the defendant 240 million won in principal, and the husband likewise lent the defendant approximately 60 million won in principal.

The defendant then paid the clients a small amount of interest each month, but stopped paying interest beginning two months prior.

When the clients requested the recovery of their principal, the defendant became unreachable and has remained so.

The clients therefore wished to proceed with a claim for return of a loan against the defendant, and 🔗the Daeryun Gumi Office agreed to provide assistance.

During the Gumi attorney consultation, 🔗the claim for return of a loan and the statutory provisions that form its legal basis were explained.

▣ Civil Act Article 598 (Definition of Loan for Consumption)

A loan for consumption becomes effective when one party agrees to transfer to the other party the ownership of money or other substitutes and the other party agrees to return the same in the same kind, quality, and quantity.

▣ Civil Act Article 390 (Nonperformance of Obligation and Damages)

If an obligor fails to perform in accordance with the substance of the obligation, the obligee may claim damages. However, this does not apply where the performance has become impossible without the obligor’s intent or negligence.

▣ Civil Act Article 393 (Scope of Damages)

(1) Damages arising from nonperformance of an obligation are limited to ordinary damages.

(2) The obligor is liable for damages arising from special circumstances only where the obligor knew or could have known of such circumstances.

Daeryun submitted all of the bankbook records showing that the clients had deposited the loan to the defendant as evidence.

In addition, by submitting as evidence all of the messages in which the defendant had promised the clients to repay within three days and the like, the team argued that the defendant had failed entirely to keep the promised repayment dates.

When the plaintiffs pressed the defendant for repayment, the defendant claimed to be ill and put off repayment of the loan day after day, and has not repaid the loan to this day. In particular, when the wife became greatly angered by such conduct, the defendant said he was disappointed and even made threatening remarks, such as that he would place repayment to them at the very lowest priority.

As a result of the investigation, it was revealed that the circumstances the defendant had cited to delay repayment were all untrue, and on this basis the team argued that the defendant had no intention of repaying from the outset.

A point to note in a claim for return of a loan is that a statute of limitations applies.

Once the limitation period has passed, there is no longer an obligation to repay the money, so it is important to proceed promptly with the legal process with the assistance of an attorney.

At Daeryun Law Firm, a team of attorneys with extensive experience in related cases provides active assistance to clients.

Accordingly, if a loan-related issue such as the above arises, you are welcome to consult 🔗Daeryun, where prompt and systematic legal assistance is available.