logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2014.12.11 2014가합380
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the believers and the house physician of the Korea Egymnas Association C church (hereinafter referred to as the "instant church"), and the defendant is the pastor of the instant church.

On January 21, 2009, 30,000, 200 on February 2009; 30,000,00 on February 25, 2009; 20,000 on March 6, 2009; 5,000,00 on March 6, 200 on April 1, 2009; 40,000 on April 30, 200 on April 23, 200, 200, 70,007 on May 30, 200, 200, 200, 300, 200 on May 20, 200, 200, 300, 200, 300, 100, 200, 200, 300, 5, 2009;

B. From January 21, 2009 to July 23, 2009, the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 340,000,000 to the Defendant’s new bank account (Account Number D), as set out in the table below.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant should pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 340,000,000 and delay damages for the completion of the construction of the instant church at the time of completion of the construction of the instant church. Since the construction of the instant church building was completed around April 25, 2013, the construction of the instant church building was completed, the Defendant claimed that the Plaintiff should pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 340,000,000 and its delay damages.

In light of the following circumstances, although the Plaintiff remitted 340,00,000 won to the Defendant as seen earlier, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the said money was paid as a loan, and instead, there is no dispute between the parties or the entire purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Plaintiff cannot find out the following circumstances, i.e., the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even if the amount of the loan alleged by the Plaintiff was not small, there was no evidence of borrowing the said money between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; the Plaintiff’s transfer to the Defendant stating the name of the loan as “Architectural Contribution”; and the Plaintiff requested otherwise to pay the Defendant prior to the institution of the instant lawsuit.

arrow