(영문) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.09.28 2016가단10913

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) 광주지방법원순천지원 2017.09.28 2016가단10913

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 25,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 22, 2016 to September 28, 2017.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) the Defendant lent KRW 5 million to the Defendant; (b) KRW 10 million on July 14, 2014; (c) KRW 20 million on December 12, 2014; (d) KRW 29,20 million on December 29, 2014; and (e) KRW 55,00,000 on January 20, 2015; (c) the Defendant paid KRW 5 million to the Plaintiff and did not repay the remainder of KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff; and (d) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 50 million and delay damages therefrom.

B. Of the loans asserted by the Defendant, KRW 30 million, among the loans asserted by the Defendant, the unpaid loan amount of KRW 5 million is KRW 25 million, and the remainder of KRW 25 million is not the loan borrowed from the Plaintiff, but the Defendant requested the Defendant to introduce a person who is able to supply a new signal, thereby introducing C. However, the Plaintiff merely transferred the new signal amount to C while the Plaintiff paid it to C, and thus, the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay it to the Plaintiff.

2. The fact that the plaintiff paid a sum of KRW 55 million to the defendant as stated in (1) through (4) and the fact that the defendant paid a sum of KRW 5 million to the plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties.

Since there is a dispute between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the name of KRW 25 million and the place of use of the above money, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the money is a loan only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff.

Rather, according to the purport of the entire pleadings in the testimony of Eul evidence No. 1, witness C, and D, it is difficult to view the amount of KRW 25 million out of the amount paid by the plaintiff to the defendant as the down payment for new mediation transactions, since it is recognized that the defendant introduced new mediation transactions between the plaintiff and C at the plaintiff's request, and that the defendant transferred the sum of KRW 25 million from the plaintiff to Eul as the down payment for new mediation transactions.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 25 million won to the plaintiff and the plaintiff is liable to do so.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.09.15 2016가단38099

-창원지방법원 2015.07.16 2015나30927

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.01.14 2014가단8381

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.15 2015가단5384227

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.07.20 2016가단14519