beta
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2014.06.13 2013가단3374

대여금

Text

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

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted as to the cause of the claim has lent KRW 142,30,00 to the Defendants and Nonparty D with interest rate of KRW 7.2% per annum. The Defendants did not perform the obligation to pay interest amounting to KRW 75,30,000 out of the loan principal as of January 13, 2013, and interest thereon. As such, the Defendants are liable to pay to each Plaintiff damages for delay at each rate of KRW 7.2% per annum from January 14, 2013 to September 25, 2013, the amount of the above loan principal amounting to KRW 75,30,000,000, and from the next day to the date of delivery of a copy of the application for modification of the claim and the cause thereof, from September 25, 2013 to the date of payment.

2. The Defendants asserted that Nonparty D received money from the Plaintiff using the passbook in the name of the Defendants, and that the Defendants did not borrow money from the Plaintiff, and that the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 of the Plaintiff’s husband E and the Plaintiff’s account from September 29, 2010 to January 6, 2012, the fact that the sum of KRW 142,300,000 was remitted from the Plaintiff’s husband E and the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the representative director G of the Defendant and the Defendant B farming association, to the passbook in the name of the representative director G, was remitted between December 31, 2010 to February 9, 2013.

However, in full view of the witness testimony of the witness evidence No. 5, the party who borrowed the above money to the plaintiff is D, and it can be recognized that D received the money borrowed from the plaintiff to the defendants and G head of the Tong. The above macro evidence and remittance of the above money submitted by the plaintiff are insufficient to recognize the fact that the defendants borrowed the money to the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion against the defendants is without merit.

4...