logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.05.02 2018나110064
대여금반환 청구
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal and the plaintiff A's claim expanded by this court are all dismissed.

2. After an appeal is filed.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Plaintiff

A, on February 5, 2014, decided to lend KRW 10 million to D (the husband of the Defendant) at the rate of 3% per July 5, 2014, and transferred KRW 9.7 million, which is the remainder after deducting KRW 3 million from the prior interest, from the E bank account under the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant account”). On September 5, 2014 and October 23, 2014, the instant account was transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s account.

Plaintiff

B decided to lend KRW 30 million to D on August 2, 2012, without fixing the due date for payment, at KRW 1,000,000 per month (after this, the interest on July 1, 2014 was changed to 2% per month) to the instant account. From October 31, 2012 to June 3, 2015, B transferred KRW 1,255,000 from the Plaintiff’s account to the Plaintiff’s B account over 18 occasions.

The Plaintiffs filed a lawsuit against D with the Daejeon District Court 2018Gadan210260, Daejeon District Court 2018. On February 13, 2019, the said court rendered a judgment that “D shall pay the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from October 24, 2014 to February 7, 2018; and ② the amount calculated at the rate of 30 million won per annum from June 4, 2015 to the date of full payment; and ② the amount calculated at the rate of 24% per annum per annum from June 4, 2015 to the date of full payment.”

(hereinafter referred to as “related judgment”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 6 (including various numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings, and Eul, the husband of the defendant asserted by the plaintiffs, was a merchant engaged in the sales business of red ginseng and red ginseng products at the time when borrowing the money from the plaintiffs. The defendant was a wife of D, living together with the economic community, and D was in bad credit standing. Thus, it was intended to help the above business.

arrow