(영문) 의정부지방법원 2019.05.23 2018가단8972

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) 의정부지방법원 2019.05.23 2018가단8972

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

In light of the absence of dispute between the parties, or according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the entire pleadings, C has maintained a de facto marital relationship with the defendant from April 2015, and the plaintiff is the party of C’s parents.

The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the defendant, and that the defendant sought the payment of the above loan. Accordingly, although there was a fact that the defendant lent the business fund from the father's father upon only drawing up the loan certificate, the defendant did not borrow the above money and did not dispose of the above loan certificate from C at the time.

Judgment

A. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the loan certificate (hereinafter "the loan certificate of this case") was written that "the defendant confirmed that he/she borrowed KRW 50 million from the plaintiff on August 31, 2016."

B. However, in order for the Plaintiff to claim the return of the loan to the Defendant, it is necessary to assert and prove the fact of delivery of the object in addition to the fact that the loan contract was concluded, and the fact that the payment has become due. Therefore, it is examined whether there is evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to

C. Upon receipt of the request from C parents to lend money, the Plaintiff stated to the effect that he/she would not lend money to the Defendant with no knowledge that he/she would lend money, and that he/she would lend money to the Defendant with no knowledge. On the request for the name of the court, the Plaintiff issued the instant loan certificate from the Defendant on August 31, 2016, and explained that on September 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 50 million to D with his/her mother, and submitted the certificate of No. 4 (the details of passbook transaction in the name of E bank) (the details of passbook transaction in D).

However, according to the above Gap evidence No. 4, the F.D.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2019.10.29 2019가단4387

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.11.27 2018가단11841

-창원지방법원통영지원 2019.01.08 2018가단3631

-서울남부지방법원 2019.05.22 2018가단217510

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.08.11 2015가단795