(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2018나83750

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2018나83750

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. All plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

3. Total costs of litigation are assessed against the Plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts: KRW 5,400,000 on June 25, 2016 and the same year in the deposit account under the name of Plaintiff A;

7. 8.3,100,000 won was remitted from the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the Plaintiff’s name to July 23, 2016, and to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of each Defendant.

(hereinafter referred to as "the money of this case"). 【No dispute exists, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the plaintiffs' assertion is that the defendant is obliged to pay the funds of this case and the agreed interest or delay damages to the plaintiffs, since the defendant did not fully pay the principal and interest of the loan, although the plaintiffs lent the funds of this case to the defendant's deposit account upon request by the mother-friendly D.

B. The gist of the Defendant’s assertion is that the Defendant received a partial repayment of KRW 26,00,000 from April 2015 to May 2016 from the Plaintiffs’ mother-friendly D, and the Defendant did not borrow from the Plaintiffs, and even if the instant money is a loan, the Defendant’s transfer of the money to the Plaintiff’s deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff ( KRW 1,00,000,000 on April 11, 2015, and KRW 5,000,000 on April 18, 2015, and KRW 10,000,000 on May 9, 2016) against the Plaintiffs’ claim.

3. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties exchange money, the plaintiff asserts that the cause of receiving 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 it is a loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). B.

In light of the above legal principles, the transfer of the instant money to the Defendant’s deposit account in the name of the Defendant was made from the bank account in the Plaintiffs’ name. However, the said facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiffs and the testimony of the witness D of the trial party are merely loans to the Defendant.

참조판례

-대법원 1972. 12. 12. 선고 72다221 판결

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.10 2018나83750

-서울고등법원 2016.11.22 2016나2007287

-인천지방법원 2015.12.18 2015가합52936

-수원지방법원 2020.02.07 2019나53754