logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.26 2018가단5017603
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Defendant G is a person operating Defendant F Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”); Defendant H is a person who has worked as the vice president of Defendant Company.

B. After filing the instant lawsuit, the deceased A (hereinafter “the deceased”) died after left Plaintiff C, D, and E, who is his/her spouse, on June 6, 2018, and died of the Plaintiff C, D, and E, and the Plaintiffs took over the lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2-3, 4, Eul evidence 26, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiffs, with the intent of Defendant G and H to grant the Deceased the right to sell an apartment bond 2 constructed by the I Housing Association, the Deceased on February 2, 2011; and

3. As to the Defendants, Defendant H received KRW 67,036,09, by forcing the Deceased to pay KRW 60,000,000, and requesting the Deceased to deliver a household to the J’s office, Defendant H received KRW 67,036,09, by forcing the Deceased to supply a household equivalent to KRW 7,036,09 on July 7, 2011.

However, it is difficult to believe that each statement of No. 4 and No. 8-1, which correspond to the facts of the plaintiffs' above fraud, is unilaterally prepared by the deceased, and therefore it is difficult to believe it as it is, and each statement of No. 1, No. 3-1, No. 3-2, and No. 5 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiffs' above assertion is without merit to examine the remainder.

B. The Plaintiffs asserted that, from December 201 to July 2012, 201, the Deceased loaned the Defendants totaling KRW 114,980,000 on 36 occasions in the name of the Defendant Company’s operating expenses, etc., and seek payment of KRW 62,080,000 among them.

However, it is difficult to believe that Gap evidence 8-1, which corresponds to the above lending facts of the plaintiffs' assertion, is the same as the above, and each of the evidence No. 2-1, No. 2, No. 3-1, No. 2, No. 5, No. 6, and No. 26 are stated alone.

arrow