logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2019.05.15 2017가합216
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. On July 3, 2015, the Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion was determined and lent to the Defendant as the payment period on August 31, 2015, a total of KRW 253 million, and KRW 80 million on July 10, 2015, respectively.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 253 million and the damages for delay from September 1, 2015, which is the next day after the due date for payment.

B. In light of the following facts and circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent KRW 253 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion based on the premise that the amount was a loan is a loan is without merit, inasmuch as there is no other evidence to support this.

① There is no dispute between the parties that the Defendant’s bank account under the name of C, KRW 245 million on July 3, 2015, and KRW 250 million on July 10, 2015, and KRW 800 million on July 10, 2015.

② However, in the instant case, the Plaintiff asserted on the premise that he is a lender, but not only deposited KRW 253 million in the name of a stock company, not in his own name, but also did not prepare a loan certificate and other disposal documents regarding KRW 253 million between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as well as between C and the Defendant.

③ Considering the Plaintiff’s assertion that “at the time, the Plaintiff, while working as the site director at the place of civil works ordered by the Defendant, lent money in the name of construction material cost to another subcontractor.” It is very common in terms of the transactional concept of monetary loan for consumption that the Plaintiff, a site director, lent money exceeding KRW 200,000 to the Defendant, a company with the place of the order, and did not keep any data and did not enter into an interest agreement.

arrow