logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.10.24 2018나7731
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion to the defendant from April 6, 2017 to the same year.

7.3. As a result of lending a total of KRW 35 million up to 3.5 million, the return shall be sought.

2. Determination

A. In the event of a transfer of money to another person’s deposit account, such transfer may be made based on various legal causes, such as loans for consumption, donations, and repayment, so it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the sole basis of the fact that such transfer was made (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The Plaintiff asserts that the said transfer was made based on a loan for consumption.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). B.

If the plaintiff added the purport of the whole pleadings to the testimony of the witness Gap, Gap evidence No. 1, and the witness Eul, the plaintiff from April 6, 2017 to the defendant.

7. The fact that a sum of KRW 35 million was paid up to March (hereinafter “instant money”) may be recognized.

However, the above legal principles and the statement in Gap evidence No. 2, which can be acknowledged by comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows: the plaintiff did not prepare a loan certificate with the defendant; the plaintiff prepared a document with Eul as to "the loan certificate" about KRW 30 million among the money in this case; however, in light of the fact that the loan certificate stated that the above KRW 30 million was received as investment cost, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant borrowed the money in this case from the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

C. Even if the Defendant borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the Defendant added the entire purport of the pleadings to the testimony of the witness C of the first instance trial, and some of the witness C of the first instance trial.

arrow