beta
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.06.12 2018가단18736

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On the ground that the Plaintiff lent the sum of KRW 66.5 million from January 31, 2008 to February 4, 2008 to the Defendant as business operation funds, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant for payment of the above loan, and on October 1, 2008, “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 6.5 million and its delay damages.” The payment order (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2008Guj71762, hereinafter referred to as “instant payment order”) was issued, and the above payment order was finalized on January 17, 2009.

B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the extension of the statute of limitations for the above loan claim.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion that the plaintiff sought the payment of the loan claim that was confirmed as the payment order of this case. The defendant asserts that, at the time of the defendant's father C, the defendant's father C had C use the passbook under the name of the defendant at the time of the middle and high-ranking trade, the defendant's father

3. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the defendant entered the Gun on Apr. 3, 2007, and discharged the defendant on Mar. 11, 2009. The defendant's father C used the defendant's bank account while operating a medium-sized vehicle selling company, and the plaintiff filed a complaint against C in fraud. The plaintiff filed a complaint against C on Nov. 12, 2010. "C by deceiving the plaintiff without any intention or ability to pay the rent, and by remitting the sum of KRW 6,50,000 from the plaintiff to the account under the name of the defendant."

According to the above facts, the plaintiff lent 66.5 million won to C other than the defendant, and C received the above loan as the account in the name of the defendant.

As alleged by the Plaintiff, there is no objection against the property specification decision based on the instant payment order.