(영문) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.06.26 2017가단21957

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) 청주지방법원 충주지원 2018.06.26 2017가단21957

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff lent the net C a total of KRW 70 million on September 27, 2012, and KRW 30 million on February 21, 2013.

C was killed on May 3, 2014, and the heir was the defendant, D, and E, but D and E renounced inheritance, and the defendant gave a qualified acceptance.

However, the defendant did not intentionally enter the inherited property in the property list, and there was a legal ground for simple approval which consumes the inherited property.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to repay the above loan to the plaintiff.

2. First of all, we examine whether the Plaintiff loaned the net C a total of KRW 70 million.

Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 4 and 5, the fact that the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 40 million to C on September 27, 2012 and KRW 30 million on February 21, 2013 can be acknowledged.

However, even if there is no dispute as to the fact that the parties gave and received money, the plaintiff's assertion that the lending was made shall bear the burden of proof against the plaintiff who asserts that the lending was made.

(2) In light of the legal principles as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is acknowledged to have a transaction relationship, such as the supply of civil engineering materials and construction materials to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, there was frequent monetary transaction between the Plaintiff and C, and there was no receipt of interest on the loan, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff was receiving interest on the loan, and there was no data that the Plaintiff notified C or his heir of the payment of the said money before filing the lawsuit. In light of the following, the Plaintiff cannot be found to have notified C or its heir of the payment of the said money, including evidence No. 4, 5, 7, and 13, witness evidence No. 13, and testimony No. 137324, Jan. 24, 2018.

참조판례

-대법원 2018. 1. 24. 선고 2017다37324 판결

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2020.10.27 2019가단8584

-대법원 2022. 7. 28. 선고 2019다29853 판결

-대법원 2003. 11. 14. 선고 2003다30968 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.02 2015나40103

-창원지방법원진주지원 2016.01.28 2014가단13804