(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.10.11 2015가단114050

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) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.10.11 2015가단114050

대여금

Text

1. The action shall be dismissed;

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted with the Defendant around November 201 and the Plaintiff filed a marriage report on March 7, 2014, beginning with a de facto marriage on March 18, 201, and divorced on September 15, 2015 in this Court Decision 2015Ra4994.

At the first day, the defendant operated a small-scale cafeteria called "D cafeteria" at C Public Corporation.

In the case where the plaintiff supplied food materials, a restaurant with a large size of more than the size was sold and the plaintiff was introduced, and the defendant expressed his intention to accept it.

With the funds for taking over a restaurant, KRW 105,00,00,000, including operating funds of KRW 10,000,000,000, and in order to raise money in addition to the money disposed of at the request of the defendant, the plaintiff lent the money of KRW 60,00 from his father to the defendant on July 2, 2012.

In 60 million won, the Plaintiff is seeking payment of 50 million won after deducting 10 million won from the amount borrowed by the Plaintiff.

2. Determination on the legality of a lawsuit

A. The following facts are acknowledged in light of the statement Nos. 3 and 11 and the attorney-at-law's fact inquiry reply.

1) On July 10, 2015, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff seeking divorce and consolation money of 30 million won. The Defendant stated in the complaint that the Plaintiff’s demand for return of 60 million won in the amount that the Plaintiff paid to the Defendant as the Plaintiff’s unreasonable treatment was difficult (other than 1-1), one of the other unfair treatment (the cause of the claim) (i.e., claim 1-1-1-2). The Plaintiff stated in the reply that the amount of 60 million won in the house would have been repaid by his father (in order to divorce), and that the amount of 60 million won in the house would have been repaid by her father, and the Defendant would have to be repaid since this money was borrowed from her father.

In this regard, the defendant argued that 60 million won were donated free of charge between the couple, and that most of them were repaid even if they were borrowed.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.11.08 2016가단21773

-인천지방법원 2017.02.15 2016고단4677

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.01.31 2017고단2429

-서울남부지방법원 2020.06.11 2019가합109538

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.17 2014고정4368