(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.11 2019나2011119

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.10.11 2019나2011119

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasons for the entry of this case by the court of first instance concerning this case are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the addition of the following judgments as to the defendant's assertion emphasized or added in the trial. As such, it shall be cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act

[Supplementary Part] Part 8 of the first instance judgment, Section 16 of the 8th instance judgment, "I am the main sentence," added the following:

In addition to the above KRW 133,600,000, the Defendant asserts that “The amount paid to the Plaintiff A from April 4, 2006 to February 28, 2013, the amount of KRW 15,230,000, which was deposited from G account to the Plaintiff A’s account, is also the amount paid to the Plaintiff A for the repayment of the Deceased’s loan obligation.

"No reason exists" in the 8th sentence of the first instance judgment and in the 12th sentence of the Act, the following shall be added:

In the lawsuit claiming the return of provisional payments filed by G against the defendant and the co-defendant C of the first instance trial, the defendant presented a written confirmation to the effect that "the plaintiffs' transaction details with G have no interest in G," and that the money received from G are private transactions unrelated to G. Thus, the above money should be deemed to have been paid to the plaintiffs of the deceased for the repayment of the instant loan.

However, in light of the fact that the debtor must actively prove the repayment of the loan, and there is room for a monetary transaction separate from the loan of this case between the plaintiffs, the deceased, and the plaintiffs and G, etc., the fact that the plaintiffs made a statement to the effect that the money transferred from the account in the name of G is not related to G is not G but G, or that the above money was paid for the deceased's repayment of the loan of this case to the plaintiffs of this case. The same holds true.

【】

2. If so, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is groundless.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2020.05.13 2019누23760

-춘천지방법원 강릉지원 2018.07.03 2017나32098

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.22 2014나48957

-서울고등법원 2015.06.11 2014나2024226

-부산지방법원 2015.11.13 2014가단88662