logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2019.10.11 2018나6934
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 15,00,000 as well as the full payment with respect thereto from May 9, 2018.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff is a farming father, and the Defendant is an agricultural products distributor, and the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant on April 19, 2017 is no dispute between the parties.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On April 19, 2017, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff leased KRW 15 million to the Defendant, setting the due date as November 2017.

B. On February 25, 2017, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff purchased the large wave cultivated by the Plaintiff from the Plaintiff in KRW 80,000,000,000, but on account of the fact that the above large wave quality is not good, the Defendant merely received KRW 15,00,000 from the Plaintiff as compensation for damages on April 19, 2017, and did not borrow KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. (1) On December 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant.

(2) On February 25, 2017, the Plaintiff sold large wave, which was cultivated by the Plaintiff in a dry field of about 60 million square meters, to the Defendant by dry field of about 80 million won.

(3) On February 25, 2017, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 15 million, KRW 10 million on February 28, 2017, KRW 10 million on March 5, 2017, KRW 10 million on March 5, 2017, KRW 20 million on March 8, 2017, KRW 30 million on March 13, 2017, KRW 95 million on March 27, 2017, and KRW 15 million on March 27, 2017 (= KRW 15 million).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2 and 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 3, Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 2 and 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant on April 19, 2017 is as seen earlier, and the following circumstances, which can be recognized by comprehensively taking account of the evidence as seen earlier, are as follows: (i) although the Plaintiff purchased a large wave of approximately KRW 60 million from the Plaintiff on February 25, 2017, the Plaintiff paid KRW 95 million to the Plaintiff from around that time to March 27, 2017; and (ii) the Defendant paid KRW 15 million to the Plaintiff by mistake, but it is difficult to accept this fact on the other hand.

arrow