logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.11.28 2014가단21529
대여금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Judgment on the ground of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. From 2007 to 2011, the Defendant borrowed the name of an architect, and entered into a three design and supervision contract (the total amount of KRW 195 million) between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff demanded that the payment be made first due to the difficulty in financing.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff first paid supervision fees (excluding design fees) to be paid at the time of commencement of construction in consideration of the Defendant’s circumstances.

However, the defendant did not perform supervision at the construction site of two buildings ( Daejeon C building, Seoul E building) due to his mistake.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return loans under the name of the supervision expenses at the construction site where the plaintiff did not conduct supervision to the plaintiff, and the defendant actually returns 54 million won to the plaintiff on May 20, 2012 within 20 days from May 20, 2012.

'' has undertaken the promise.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 54 million and damages for delay.

According to the statement of Gap 2-8, 10-14, each of the evidence Nos. 2-2-8, 10-14, the plaintiff has been found to have remitted the sum of KRW 142 million to the defendant's bank account as shown in the attached table.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the defendant borrowed 54 million won from the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the loan agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as well as the loan of 54 million won based thereon.

Rather, according to the facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-3, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 1-2, Eul evidence 3-2, Eul evidence 2-2, Eul evidence 4, Eul evidence 5, and the whole purport of the pleadings, G (the husband of the plaintiff) and the defendant knew about about about 10 years of work such as construction, design, etc., and the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the owner of the building, the plaintiff and the plaintiff and the plaintiff, the plaintiff and the plaintiff et al. enter into a contract for the new construction of the building of three items (Seoul building, Seoul DD building, and Seoul E building) with the defendant's introduction.

arrow