beta
(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나3246

대여금

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. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Under the Plaintiff’s guarantee of the gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant received a discount from C on July 200, and as the payment of the said check was refused, the Plaintiff subrogated for KRW 28 million to C, and thus, the Defendant is liable to pay the amount of subrogation and interest in arrears to the Plaintiff.

B. The gist of the defendant's assertion is that the plaintiff failed to submit reasonable financial data, such as the details of remittance for subrogation, and it cannot be ruled out that the amount claimed to have been transferred for subrogation is a product price liability. The defendant was admitted to the prison around July 200 that the defendant received discount from C under the plaintiff's guarantee. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion that the defendant received discount from C and the claim for subrogation payment based on such premise is no reason to view it as a mother.

2. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the description of the evidence No. 1 and the testimony of the witness C at the trial of the party, are as follows: ① in the case of discounting the Defendant’s check, it is difficult for C to find out a clear motive for the Plaintiff to arrange the discount of the check even when the Plaintiff guaranteed the check; ② in the certificate of subrogation for the preparation of C (Evidence No. 2) the statement that C remitted the amount of discount of the check to the Defendant; on the other hand, C granted the amount of discount of the check to a person other than the Defendant at the trial of the party.

The testimony is somewhat unclear as to whether or not the Defendant received a discount on the check from C, and ③ the amount of KRW 28 million transferred from the Plaintiff in the court of the first instance was received as the price for the goods or the amount of subrogated payment due to the default on the check, and ④ the testimony is made to the effect that the amount of subrogated payment cannot be specified among them.