(영문) 전주지방법원 2020.10.07 2019나8002 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2020.10.07 2019나8002

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred a total of KRW 28,200,000 to the Defendant’s account from April 11, 2018 to July 16, 2018, and the fact that the Plaintiff and the Defendant proposed a school during the said period is either not disputed between the parties, or recognized by Gap’s evidence Nos. 1, 3 (including the serial number), and Eul evidence No. 3.

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The main claim 1) The plaintiff, as the plaintiff lent KRW 28,200,00 to the defendant, seeking the repayment of the above loan to the defendant. 2) Since the transfer of money to another person's deposit account in a judgment is possible based on various legal causes, the transfer can be made. Thus, even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchange money between them, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receipt of money is a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the cause is a loan under a loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). With respect to the Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 28,20,00 to the Defendant, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a donation of the said money from the Plaintiff under the pretext of living expenses, etc. while joining the Plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the said money to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 3, the plaintiff filed a complaint against the defendant for the crime that the defendant acquired 26,200,000 won out of the above money, but the prosecutor also filed a non-prosecution decision against the defendant on the ground that the plaintiff was determined to have paid the above money as living expenses, etc. during his/her teaching system with the defendant.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

B. The gist of the conjunctive claim 1 gives the Defendant KRW 28,200,000.

참조판례

-대법원 1972. 12. 12. 선고 72다221 판결

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나2950

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.10.18 2017가단335

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2019.10.15 2019나30522

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.28 2019가단82154

-창원지방법원통영지원 2019.10.15 2019가단22189