logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2019.01.10 2018가단6149
부당이득금반환
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to loan claims

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion 1) The plaintiff A asserts that total of KRW 21,50,000 from August 18, 2009 to May 5, 2014 (the total amount of school expenses claimed by the plaintiff is KRW 10,878,300, the total amount of the school expenses claimed by the plaintiff, KRW 10,620,00, and KRW 21,498,300, KRW 21,500, and KRW 21,500,000 if it is added up.

(A) Claim that the sum of the educational expenses of KRW 10,878,300 on August 18, 2009, KRW 18,372,30 on August 18, 2010, KRW 1,500,00 on March 9, 2010, KRW 1,875,00 on April 28, 201, KRW 18,694,00 on January 18, 201, KRW 2,437,00 on February 15, 2012, KRW 10,620 on the aggregate of the educational expenses of KRW 10,50,00 on the private teaching institute and KRW 10,620 on the private teaching institute.

) 2011. 9. 9. 500,000원, 2011. 11. 12. 1,200,000원, 2011. 12. 12. 500,000원, 2012. 6. 18. 1,050,000원, 2012. 8. 20. 700,000원, 2012. 12. 1. 500,000원, 2013. 2. 1. 500,000원, 2013. 4. 1. 500,000원, 2013. 6. 3. 500,000원, 2013. 7. 2. 500,000원, 2013. 8. 1. 500,000원, 2013. 9. 2. 500,000원, 2013. 10. 4. 500,000원, 2013. 12. 3. 600,000원, 2014. 1. 9. 500,000원, 2014. 2. 4. 500,000원, 2014. 4. 9. 500,000원, 2014. 5. 5. 500,000원 2) 원고 B는 피고에게 고시원비 및 학원비로 2014. 10. 10. 600,000원, 2014. 11. 3. 500,000원, 2015. 1. 6. 1,000,000원, 2015. 2. 10. 500,000원, 2015. 3. 10. 1,000,000원, 2015. 4. 3. 1,000,000원, 2015. 4. 29. 500,000원, 2015. 6. 1. 600,000원, 2015. 6. 2. 600,000원, 2015. 7. 31. 700,000원, 2015. 9. 5. 600,000원, 2015. 11. 10. 500,000원, 2015. 12. 9. 1,000,000원 합계 9,100,000원을 대여하였다고 주장하면서 위 대여금 및 이에 대한 지연손해금의 지급을 구한다.

B. We examine the judgment, Gap evidence No. 1 (Certification of Contents) is merely a content certification that contains the plaintiffs' alleged facts, and it is confirmed that some of the plaintiffs' alleged facts were confirmed by the evidence Nos. 5 and 9, but it is not possible to identify the cause of remittance. Gap evidence Nos. 1, 5, 9, and 10 are numbers.

arrow