logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2020.01.31 2019가단1355
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On November 17, 2016, the Plaintiff alleged that he/she leased KRW 70,00,000 to the Defendant on the condition that he/she would pay interest of KRW 2% per month. On November 21, 2017, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,000 as principal on November 22, 2017, the principal amount of KRW 10,000,000 as principal on November 22, 2017, and the principal amount of KRW 11,40,000 as principal and interest interest, and KRW 50,000 as of January 13, 2017, under the condition that he/she left for KRW 20,000,000 as the principal and interest of KRW 11,40,000,000 as the principal and interest of KRW 10,000 on January 15, 2018.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remaining KRW 70,000,000 and 15% interest per annum from the day after the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the day of full payment.

2. According to the judgment evidence Nos. 1, 3 through 6, the fact that the plaintiff remitted money to the defendant's account as alleged by the plaintiff is recognized.

However, in full view of the evidence and the purport of the entire pleadings as above, the Plaintiff’s above 70,000,000 won was as follows: (a) against Nonparty C and D, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against Nonparty C and D as the Seoul District Court 2018,120,000, and its payment order was finalized; (b) as to Party C, a favorable judgment was rendered by service by public notice by the court 2018Ga1485; (c) the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit against the Defendant against the Defendant for whom the possibility of repayment was unknown even though the real estate auction procedure by official auction was conducted on the real estate of Party C; and (d) C and the Defendant were the Defendant’s spouse; and (c) in light of the fact that the Plaintiff was prepared with the Defendant, if the Defendant had a co-debtor relationship with C and D, the Plaintiff did not so even have sufficiently prepared the loan certificate from the Defendant; and (c) in light of the above circumstances, even if the Plaintiff submitted the above evidence to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s transfer the above evidence to the Defendant.

arrow