(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가단36069

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.07 2016가단36069

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion transferred KRW 48,720,000 to the Defendant on November 22, 2010, and KRW 14,420,000 on February 14, 2012, and KRW 19,30,000 on three occasions.

After that, the defendant paid 15,000,000 won over two times and paid 33,720,000 won as the balance of the loan.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the loan stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff and pay damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. According to the statements in Gap evidence No. 1-1-3, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted money to the defendant's account of passbook No. 1-3 times as alleged.

B. However, the Defendant asserted that the Defendant’s husband C, who died on September 4, 2016, used the Defendant’s passbook account for business, only ① there was no fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff, ② it is unclear whether the remitted money of this case is a loan, and ③ even if C borrowed money, it cannot be recognized that the unpaid balance reaches 3,720,00 won.

C. In light of the Defendant’s above assertion, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff’s entry of the details of passbook transaction (No. 1-3) submitted by the Plaintiff and the statement of notification (No. 2) sent by the Plaintiff unilaterally to the Defendant when it came to October 2015, etc., are loans to the Defendant, and the remaining amount of unpaid payment reaches KRW 33,720,00,000, etc., and there is no evidence to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion other than this.

In other words, the plaintiff asserts that even if C borrowed the above money from the plaintiff, it is an act within the scope of the right of representation in daily home affairs, the defendant, the wife, is obligated to complete the payment.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the remitted money was used for the purpose of daily living with the defendant as above.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2021.02.10 2020가단4763

-부산지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나3303

-제주지방법원 2016.02.03 2015나1260

-서울동부지방법원 2014.11.20 2013가단40927

-대전지방법원 2015.02.11 2014나13295