(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.11.02 2017가단6170

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) 창원지방법원 2017.11.02 2017가단6170

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from C, and the plaintiff paid KRW 50,000 to C on behalf of the defendant upon the defendant's request. As above, the plaintiff sought payment of KRW 50,000,000 lent to the defendant by subrogation.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that he borrowed money from C on behalf of A, and that the plaintiff paid the above borrowed money directly to C, and that the defendant did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

B. Based on the records in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant received a total of KRW 50,00,000 from the deposit account in the name of Eul, and the plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 50,000,000 from April 19, 2017, and the total of KRW 50,000,000 from the same month to the deposit account in the name of Eul.

However, when comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in Eul evidence No. 1, it can be recognized that the defendant immediately remitted 50 million won to the plaintiff on March 7, 2007, which he received from the defendant as above, to the plaintiff on March 7, 2007. In full view of each of the above facts, the defendant appears to have received money from C and delivered money to the plaintiff, and the plaintiff seems to have paid the above money directly to C.

As to this, the Plaintiff alleged that KRW 50,000,000 paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff was the money paid for the purpose of investment apart from the above loan. However, in light of the following: (a) the Defendant immediately transferred the money from C to the Plaintiff; (b) the amount of each remittance is accurately consistent with the amount that the Defendant received from C; and (c) the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant invested in the Plaintiff at the time of payment of the said money, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the said KRW 50,000,000

Ultimately, the above facts alone are that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원통영지원 2017.11.21 2017가단21014

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단130527

-서울남부지방법원 2020.10.22 2020가단7334

-대전지방법원서산지원 2016.08.10 2016가단2514

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.15 2018가단82522