logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2015.08.05 2014가단5121
대여금
Text

1. As to Defendant B’s KRW 42,125,510 and KRW 38,381,10 among them, Defendant B’s KRW 42,125,510 from April 30, 2014, KRW 3,744,410.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff alleged that between January 22, 2010 and February 20, 2012, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,7160,00 to Defendant B, and Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation of Defendant B. However, as shown in the above argument, the part in the name of Defendant C among the evidence Nos. 1, which appears to correspond to the above argument, cannot be considered as evidence because there is no evidence to acknowledge the authenticity, and the other evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone alone is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that Defendant C jointly and severally guaranteed as above, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. As to the cause of the claim, the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,7160,00 to Defendant B during the period from January 22, 2010 to February 20, 2012, and Defendant B lent the Plaintiff’s credit card to Defendant B from April 2, 201 to May 10, 2012 by using the said credit card to KRW 3,744,410 is not disputed, or it is recognized in accordance with the purport of the entry in the evidence and the entire pleadings.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay the above loan and credit card payment to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

Meanwhile, the plaintiff alleged that he was liable to pay the above amount of 7.3 million won to the plaintiff because he received a request from the defendant B to pay the amount of the fraternity by substitute and paid the amount of 7.3 million won on two occasions, but the defendant B was not liable to pay the above amount to the plaintiff. However, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the above argument, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's

B. Defendant B’s defenses (i) asserted that Defendant B paid a total of KRW 2,3710,000 to the Plaintiff’s bank account from April 30, 201 to June 15, 201, and the Plaintiff asserted that the said money repaid a separate loan obligation.

No. 12 of the evidence No. 12.

arrow