(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2017.07.12 2016가단21883

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) 대구지방법원서부지원 2017.07.12 2016가단21883

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On August 16, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30 million from the temple located in Daegu Northerndong to the Defendant and received a loan certificate.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 30 million and damages for delay.

B. The defendant did not borrow a cash of KRW 30 million on August 16, 2007 from the plaintiff, and there is no fact that the defendant prepared a loan certificate.

However, on August 16, 2002, the Plaintiff invested 30 million won as start-up funds of the Sri Lanka corporation and received it from the Defendant. At the time, the Defendant invested 60 million won together with the Defendant at the time, not borrowed money from the Plaintiff.

2. On August 16, 2002, the Plaintiff issued a receipt to the Defendant on August 16, 2002 to the effect that the Defendant issued a receipt to confirm the receipt, and the fact that the Defendant issued a receipt to confirm the receipt does not conflict between the parties, or that it can be acknowledged by taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the entry of evidence No. 1.

However, since the reason why the money is given can be diverse by means of investment, repayment, donation, simple delivery, etc. even if it is not leased, the plaintiff who asserts that the money is a loan under a monetary loan for consumption should prove that it is a loan.

In relation to this, the defendant was merely receiving the money invested as a start-up fund of the Sri Lanka corporation, and the defendant submitted the evidence Nos. 1 to 5 (including each number) corresponding thereto.

(A) The purport of confirming the receipt of the evidence No. 1 as a start-up fund of the Sri Lanka corporation is consistent with the Defendant’s assertion). On the other hand, the Plaintiff failed to submit any objective evidence proving the existence of a monetary loan agreement, such as the certificate of loan.

In addition, in the case of lending money to another person, a security which can guarantee the payment of the due date and interest.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2017.01.10 2016노2962

-인천지방법원부천지원 2020.12.11 2020가단7219

-청주지방법원 2019.11.22 2018노1551

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2016.09.13 2016가단419

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.11 2016가단112097