logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.11.29 2018가단73000
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A is a person who was in a de facto marital relationship with the net F (the deceased on March 28, 2018; hereinafter “the deceased”) from March 2016. Plaintiff B is the mother of the deceased, and the Defendants are the heirs.

B. From January 2018, the Deceased operated the instant restaurant with the mutual name “G” (hereinafter “instant restaurant”).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 10-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In light of the Plaintiffs’ assertion, Plaintiff A lent a total of KRW 137,59,780 from October 31, 2017 to January 9, 2018, under the pretext of operating funds for the instant restaurant, etc., to the Deceased, and was not reimbursed KRW 72,59,780 among them. Plaintiff B lent KRW 30,000 on December 26, 2017. As such, the Defendants, the inheritor of the Deceased, should pay each of the above loans in accordance with their inheritance shares.

Plaintiff

A, as preliminaryly, investing KRW 72,59,780 in a restaurant business with the Deceased and the instant restaurant business, and the business relationship was terminated as a cause of the Defendants’ liability after the Deceased’s death. As such, the Defendants should return KRW 72,59,780 of the Plaintiff A’s investment in the same business relationship on the ground of termination of the business relationship.

B. Determination 1) First, we examine the primary claim. According to Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, 5 through 7, 11 through 15, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (each of the statements included in the household numbers, the fact-finding results and all of the arguments about the Hcooperative branch of this court, from around 2015 to before the deceased’s death in 2018, there were several monetary transactions between the deceased and the plaintiff A on several occasions, the fact that the plaintiff paid part of the construction cost, etc. regarding the restaurant of this case, the plaintiff Eul transferred KRW 30 million to the deceased on December 26, 2017, and the fact that the plaintiff transferred KRW 500,000 from the deceased on the same day.

However, in light of the relationship between the deceased and the plaintiffs, the above facts of recognition or the plaintiffs submitted.

arrow