(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.04.05 2016나308096

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) 대구지방법원 2017.04.05 2016나308096

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Plaintiff corresponding to the following additional payment order shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) agreed to be supplied with a smartphone case by the Defendant. On May 31, 2010 and June 4, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 15 million to the Defendant on two occasions. However, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 1,250,000 to the Defendant on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to use a smartphone case, not a smartphone case, and returned the product; (b) the briefs of this case, on which the declaration of intent to cancel the contract for the supply of goods was written to the Defendant; (c) the Plaintiff lent KRW 1,250,000 to the Defendant on August 25, 2013; (d) the Plaintiff lent KRW 1,00,000 to the Defendant on September 10, 2010; and (e) the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on October 10, 2013.

3) In addition, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 18,00,000 to the Defendant on July 31, 2014, and KRW 18,000,000 on August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 20,000,000 on August 6, 2014, and KRW 1,000,000 on October 1, 2014. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff is obliged to pay KRW 4,335,00 to the Defendant as a result of monetary transactions with the Defendant from September 2, 2008 to February 2009, after deducting KRW 15,00,00,000 from the sales price refund under the goods supply contract cancellation under paragraph (1) and the balance of loans KRW 15,00,050,000,000,000,030,005,000 and 305,005,000.

B. The defendant's assertion that the plaintiff received the same money as that stated in paragraphs (1) and (2). However, the plaintiff's claim that the amount stated in paragraph (1) was received from the defendant from 2008 to 2009 as repayment and apology of the amount borrowed from the defendant, and that the amount stated in paragraph (2) is not a loan but a loan, but a loan was paid as investment in the medium cell phone and the medium and large-sized sales business.

In addition, although it is recognized that the amount stated in paragraph 3 was borrowed from the plaintiff, 21,500,000 won among the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원경주지원 2016.07.19 2015가단14153

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가단12193

-인천지방법원 2018.06.27 2017가단37521

-서울북부지방법원 2016.01.12 2015나2797

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.20 2014가단5000560