(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.03 2015가단46155

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.03 2015가단46155

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,00,000 as well as 20% per annum from February 6, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to the account in the name of the Defendant on July 24, 2014; the Defendant’s wife transferred KRW 15 million to the account in the name of the Plaintiff on August 15, 2014; and the Plaintiff again remitted KRW 15 million on September 5, 2014 to the Defendant account. There is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since the above total amount of KRW 45 million remitted to the defendant (= KRW 30 million) was loaned to the plaintiff upon the defendant's request, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the remainder of KRW 30 million, which remains after subtracting the amount of KRW 15 million repaid to the plaintiff, and damages for delay.

Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the money that the plaintiff claimed as a loan was borrowed from the plaintiff by the non-party D, and the defendant merely lent the account under the name of the defendant to the non-party D upon D's request (which allowed to be used) and therefore there is no monetary loan relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant.

3. Determination

A. Since a certain person may remit money to another person, the fact that the said cause of transfer is a monetary loan between the remitter and the remitter, in principle, should be proved by the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff.

However, in this case, the defendant does not dispute the fact that the plaintiff remitted money for the purpose of lending money, and argued that the borrower is a non-party D who is not the borrower. Accordingly, the matters to be proved by the plaintiff are not D but the defendant.

B. In the instant case where a disposal document, such as a documentary loan loan certificate, is not prepared, it is not always easy to determine the parties to the said monetary loan contract.

However, first of all, the transfer of money to the account in the name of the defendant is one of the valuable signs that can see the defendant as the borrower.

Moreover, the descriptions and arguments of evidence Nos. 4 and 5 are all included.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2015.09.16 2014가합14692

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나61208

-울산지방법원 2016.08.24 2015나22229

-대구지방법원 2016.02.04 2015나307751

-부산지방법원 2016.07.14 2015나15754