logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.07.24 2017가단55394
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

In light of the absence of dispute between the parties or the overall purport of evidence and the argument, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Defendant’s husband transferred KRW 30 million to the deposit account under the name of his husband C, and KRW 3 million on July 7, 2014.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 33 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff for the following reasons.

The Plaintiff lent KRW 33 million to the Defendant by means of remitting KRW 33 million to the deposit account in the name of C.

(1) The Plaintiff promised to repay the said money to C at the time of lending the said KRW 33 million.

The Plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against C with the charge of fraud, and the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff money upon withdrawal of the criminal complaint.

(2) B. The Defendant’s husband C borrowed the above money from the Plaintiff to use it as a business fund and cost of living. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above money jointly with C pursuant to Articles 827 and 832 of the Civil Act.

(3) First, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant with respect to the note 1, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant.

(2) The health class and evidence No. 5 alone are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the obligation together with the obligation, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

Finally, even if the Defendant’s husband is the Defendant’s husband, the Defendant’s act of borrowing and using money can not be seen as within the scope of the daily home life insurance. In light of the motive and purpose of borrowing money, the place of using the borrowed money, etc., it should be exceptionally considered that the Defendant’s act of borrowing money is within the scope of the daily home life insurance.

arrow