logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2017.08.31 2016나2161
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The party's assertion

A. The Plaintiff, one’s husband, was aware of the Defendant who was engaged in the wood industry while engaging in the instant business. If the Defendant borrowed money, he/she would promptly receive the construction cost and pay it. From August 13, 2015 to September 25, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 1,50,000 to the Defendant in total three times.

Nevertheless, the defendant does not fully repay the above loan with a reasonable period of time. The defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 11.5 million and damages for delay.

B. The amount of KRW 11.5 million deposited into the Defendant’s account in the name of the Plaintiff was received by the Defendant as a repayment for part of the construction price that the Defendant received from C, not borrowed.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff’s name deposited in the Defendant account in the name of the Plaintiff, KRW 3 million on August 13, 2015, KRW 1500,000 on September 3, 2015, KRW 7 million on September 25, 2015, and KRW 11,50,000 on September 25, 2015 is no dispute between the parties.

B. However, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above money was deposited to the Defendant under the name of the lending. Rather, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by the purport of the evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the above money was deposited as a payment for construction price rather than a loan.

The plaintiff's claim cannot be accepted on a different premise.

① Money deposited in the Defendant account in the name of the Plaintiff was paid by the Defendant for each of the personnel expenses for Da, E, and F, which the Defendant had been working for the unclaimed Corporation. The said son was instructed by C from July 2015 to September 2015, and work in Jeju-si detached Housing.

‘Written confirmation of fact,’ was presented.

Therefore, at the time of the deposit of money to the Defendant, there was a contract or subcontract relationship between the Defendant and C, and accordingly C had the obligation to pay the construction price to the Defendant.

arrow