beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.08 2014나61073

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. Basic facts

A. C, upon the Plaintiff’s request, remitted the sum of KRW 1,692,00,000 to the bank account under the Defendant’s name and KRW 9 million on October 23, 2006, and KRW 7920,000 on October 24, 2006.

B. Around that time, C received six copies of the household check issued by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff on December 24, 2006, the par value of which is three million won, each of which is indicated at the south Tridong Branch of the Bank of Korea. On July 19, 2007, Korea bank issued a check to pay the above check, but was refused payment on the ground of the lapse of the date.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Gap evidence No. 2, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff, in the form of borrowing money to C and re-lending it to the defendant, the plaintiff extended 18 million won to the defendant on December 24, 2006, with the due date specified as 1,6920,000 won (1.9 million won on October 23, 2006, and 7.920,00 won on October 24, 2006) calculated by deducting 1080,000 won from the prior interest on the payment date, was directly remitted to the defendant's account from C. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay of the loan amounting to 18 million won and 16.92 million won of the loan principal to the plaintiff.

B. (1) The fact that C received six copies of the above household check issued by the Plaintiff and remitted KRW 1,6920,000 to the bank account under the name of the Defendant after the Plaintiff received six copies of the above household check issued by the Defendant, is as seen earlier. In full view of the respective entries and the entire purport of the statement and arguments in subparagraph 2-1, 2, and 3-2 of the evidence No. 2, and that C borrowed money from the Plaintiff to the Defendant and lent it again to the Defendant by borrowing the money from the said Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff.