beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.22 2011가합116015

대여금 등

Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff's claim for the loan against the defendant B had a verbal disability and physical disability in around 1992 due to traffic accident.

Defendant B demanded the Plaintiff to provide medical treatment in U.S. and to lend money for the purpose of advance expenses, and the Plaintiff lent a sum of KRW 32,441 million to Defendant B.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 322,4410,00 and damages for delay.

Judgment

If Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 25 (including each number, if any, hereinafter the same shall apply), part of Gap evidence 4, witness E’s testimony, and the whole purport of the pleadings as a result of the examination of part of the plaintiff himself, it is recognized that the plaintiff, at the request of the defendant Eul, entered the remitter into the defendant Eul or the "B Chairperson" referred to him/her, or entered the name of the plaintiff himself/herself and remitted 32,4410,000 won in total to F or G accounts, over 10 times from July 30, 199 to June 12, 201.

However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the aforementioned evidence, i.e., (i) the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant B a written notification stating that “the Plaintiff acquired KRW 300 million by deceit for medical treatment costs or travel expenses” on October 15, 2010 and on October 29, 2010; (ii) the Plaintiff’s husband’s wife took it first at this court, stating that “I would have taken it first for the purpose of hospital treatment or any other expenses, but I would have borrowed money for one’s own interest; (iii) there is no distinction between the amount brought to medical expenses and the amount brought to the loan; and (iv) there is no distinction between the amount brought to the loan.” In light of the aforementioned facts, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to believe that the Plaintiff lent KRW 32,410,000 to the Defendant B, which appears consistent with the allegations that the Plaintiff lent KRW 32,410,000,00 to the Defendant.