beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.02 2015나7481

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7-1, 2, and Gap evidence Nos. 14-4 of Sep. 12, 2001, the plaintiff lent 4,000,000 won to E on Sept. 12, 2001 without setting the interest and due date for payment; Eul (hereinafter "the deceased")'s property was deceased on Mar. 3, 2013; three-seven shares of the deceased's wife; the defendant who is his child; and D's 2/7 shares of each of the children; according to the above facts of recognition, Eul is obligated to pay 1,714,285 won to the plaintiff (=4,00,000 x 3/7,000 x less than KRW 3/7,000; hereinafter the same shall apply) x 104,207 won x 1084,270

The plaintiff asserted that he agreed with the deceased to receive interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 18% per annum on the loan principal. However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above only by the descriptions of Gap evidence 2-1 through 8, Gap evidence 3, and evidence 8-1 through 9, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, the plaintiff's assertion in this part is not accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remainder is without merit.

B. On September 11, 2001 and December 2, 2001, the Plaintiff alleged that the deceased additionally lent KRW 6,000,000,000, which is the sum of KRW 1,000 on September 11, 2001 and around December 2001, and KRW 5,000,000,00. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion is insufficient to recognize it only by the descriptions of evidence 3, evidence 7-1, 2, and evidence 12-1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, barring special circumstances, the Plaintiff is entitled to KRW 1,714,285, and the Appointor C is entitled to KRW 1,142,857, respectively, and each of them is subject to the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint to the date of complete payment, as requested by the Plaintiff.