(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나18906

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) 수원지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나18906

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Appointed C (hereinafter “Plaintiff, etc.”) are children of the network D (hereinafter “the deceased”) that died on May 22, 2014.

B. The Deceased leased Gangnam-gu Seoul E 101 (hereinafter “instant loan”) under the name of the Defendant, and transferred the lessor the amount of KRW 10,000,000 as a deposit for lease on January 13, 201, and KRW 86,90,000 on January 31, 201.

C. On January 31, 201, the Defendant transferred the instant loan to the deceased, and lived together with the deceased by the time of his death.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, 8, and 13, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. After the deceased’s death, the Defendant promised the Plaintiff to pay KRW 86,90,00,000, borrowed from the deceased as the security deposit for the loan of this case, but returned all the above security deposit from the lessor of the loan of this case.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff et al. the above deposit amount of 86,900,000 won, which is the inherited property left by the deceased.

B. We examine the following circumstances: (a) there is no document that can be deemed as a disposal document, such as a loan certificate or receipt, made between the deceased and the defendant; (b) there was only a transfer of deposit to the lessor and there was no direct monetary transaction with the defendant; and (c) there was a person living together with the deceased and the defendant for a considerable period of time, and there was money transaction between the deceased and the defendant.

Even if it cannot be readily determined as lending rather than donation, and (4) In full view of the fact that the Defendant, even though some of the periods of living together, appears to have borne the living expenses with the Deceased, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Deceased lent the above security deposit to the Defendant, and the Defendant also made the said security deposit to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.01.17 2016가단51985

-대구지방법원 2012.06.01 2011노3202

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.06.19 2017가합404074

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가합514665

-서울행정법원 2015.02.12 2014구합53384