beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.15 2019나1326

양수금 등

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for the acceptance of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows, except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the assertion that the defendant emphasizes or adds to this court, and thus, they are cited by the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff’s spouse B and the Defendant entered into a contract with the Defendant to make an investment of KRW 200,000,000 to the Defendant who agreed to operate the LPG rental business after retirement with the previous workplace rent. In order to protect the investment deposit, after transferring the right to refund the lease deposit of this case to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff formally drawn up a loan certificate of KRW 200,000 to the Defendant with the monthly interest rate of KRW 1.5% (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

Therefore, the money that the plaintiff paid to the defendant has been paid to the defendant as the investment deposit, and the defendant has paid the plaintiff money in the name of profit despite the business difficulties. Rather, the plaintiff must settle the part of the defendant's loss.

B. According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 4 submitted by the defendant at the trial court, the defendant transferred 20,000 won each month from Sep. 15, 2014, Oct. 3, 2014, and 200,000 won each month from Nov. 2014 to Oct. 2016, 2016 (the plaintiff did not have the details of remittance for five minutes, but was paid by the warden), despite the fact that the above facts alone are insufficient to deem that the defendant concluded an investment contract with the defendant notwithstanding the existence of the loan certificate in this case, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion cannot be accepted on a different premise.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is accepted within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as there is no ground, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just as it is concluded.