logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.07.16 2015나30927
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim extended in the trial is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 1100 million to the Defendant, which, at the time, requested the Defendant to borrow business funds from the Plaintiff and his wife and his wife C.

On April 15, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 86 million to C. On April 15, 2013, C sent KRW 25 million to the Defendant on April 15, 2013, who was deposited in the previous name C.

The above KRW 25 million is the Defendant’s debt amounting to KRW 25 million against the Plaintiff, which was remaining after C borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on March 23, 2009, but repaid to the Plaintiff on August 11, 2009.

Therefore, the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 110 million from the Plaintiff via C, and the Plaintiff received KRW 60 million out of the above KRW 111 million, and the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the loan (= KRW 110 million - KRW 60 million) and damages for delay.

B. Defendant 1) did not request C to borrow money from the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff did not demand the Defendant to repay money prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit. Therefore, even if the Defendant is liable for the repayment of money from the Plaintiff, C is not the Defendant. Even if the Defendant is liable for the payment of the said loan, as the Defendant, on April 15, 2013, remitted total of KRW 86 million and KRW 25 million, which was paid from the Plaintiff at the time of remitting money to the Defendant, to the Defendant on April 15, 2013, KRW 25 million, among the Plaintiff’s claim of this case (= KRW 110 million - KRW 25 million - KRW 60 million paid by the Plaintiff), the Defendant is not liable for the repayment to the Plaintiff.

2. The judgment of this Court

A. There is no dispute between the parties, or according to the statements in Gap evidence 2 through 5, the plaintiff is limited to C on March 23, 2009, KRW 30 million, and KRW 86 million on April 15, 2013.

arrow