logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.07.21 2014가단31737
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 31,60,000 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from October 28, 2014 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. In the absence of dispute, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted 20 million won to the Defendant’s account on April 19, 2014, 5.8 million won on April 21, 2014, and 30 million won on June 13, 2014, and 1.6 million won on June 13, 2014, to the Defendant’s account is no dispute between the parties.

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant lent the above money as a business fund to the defendant, and even if not, the defendant acquired the above money from the plaintiff as a business fund.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff only used the defendant's account to continue to invest in C which he did not want the transaction with the plaintiff, and that he did not borrow the above money from the plaintiff or acquired the above money from the plaintiff.

B. Examining the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 2 and 4 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the witness D’s testimony in addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the Defendant recommended the Plaintiff to make an investment in the merchandise coupon business, but the Plaintiff would make an investment if the Plaintiff did not comply with the request, thereby borrowing the said money from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff notified the Defendant to pay the said money on or around July 7, 2014.

Meanwhile, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the descriptions of evidence Nos. 3 and 4 as well as the witness D’s testimony, i.e., preparing a fact-finding certificate, etc. at the time when C was accused by the Defendant, and ii) having received an investment from the Plaintiff via the Defendant, or the money transferred by C directly by the Defendant does not appear to have been invested by the Defendant as it is, depending on the difference between the amount and the amount remitted by C to the Defendant and KRW 32.8 million on April 19, 2014, and the amount remitted by C, as the sum of KRW 32.8 million on June 13, 2014, and it does not appear to have been invested by C as it is, and even according to the Defendant’s assertion, the Plaintiff recovered the investment principal after making an investment in the previous C, and thus, it seems that there is no reason to make an investment again to make an investment in C again.

arrow