beta
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.12.08 2015가단17531

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 24,00,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from May 1, 2015 to December 8, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 29, 2013, the Plaintiff received a loan of KRW 3 million from the HK Savings Bank, KRW 4 million from the GK Savings Bank, and KRW 7 million from the CYI Loan, respectively, and remitted KRW 17 million in total to the account in the name of the Defendant.

B. On April 30, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 7 million from a savings bank to the account under the name of the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed money (i.e., KRW 24 million) as above at the Defendant’s request that the Plaintiff lend money (i.e., KRW 17 million).

In addition, the plaintiff pays interest on the above loan to the relevant financial institution every month.

Therefore, the defendant asserts that not only the above loan 24 million won but also the interest amount paid by the plaintiff is liable to pay the plaintiff KRW 9,652,272.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the above KRW 24 million was not loans paid by the plaintiff as a result of the introduction by the plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant, and that the amount equivalent to the interest paid by the plaintiff to the financial institution is a special damage and is not a duty to pay it to the part not known to the defendant.

B. The objective meaning is not clearly revealed solely on the Plaintiff’s deposit of KRW 24 million with the passbook in the name of the Defendant. As such, in light of the motive and circumstance leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the juristic act by the party, transaction practices, etc., a contract between the parties in accordance with logical and empirical rules, and the common sense of social norms and the transaction norms, based on a comprehensive consideration of the motive and background leading up to the juristic act, the purpose and genuine intent to be achieved by the said juristic act, the transaction practices, etc.