logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.21 2015나48718
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 16, 2006, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with F to purchase the F-owned Seoul Special Metropolitan City H site and the multi-family house on its ground (hereinafter “multi-family house in this case”) at KRW 290 million, but to pay the remainder of KRW 270 million on October 31, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant sales contract”).

B. The Defendant’s mother-friendly E concluded the instant sales contract on behalf of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff, a licensed real estate agent operating the D Licensed Real Estate Agent Office, mediated the conclusion of the instant sales contract.

C. The Defendant paid in full the balance to F on October 31, 2006, and completed the registration of ownership transfer on the instant multi-family house based on the instant sales contract on the same day.

2. The parties' assertion

A. On October 19, 2006, the Plaintiff, through I, who was the land owner on October 19, 2006, lent KRW 50 million to F with the purchase price of the instant multi-family house, and directly lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant on October 31, 2006.

B. Although the Plaintiff’s summary of the Defendant’s assertion was not specifically aware of the reason why the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50 million to F via I, the Plaintiff recognized that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 50 million out of the purchase price of the instant multi-family house from the Plaintiff, and the remainder of the purchase price of KRW 240 million ( KRW 290 million - 50 million) was completed by taking over the obligation to refund the deposit to the existing lessee of the instant multi-family house from the Defendant’s funds and F.

Therefore, the amount that the Defendant borrowed from the Plaintiff is merely KRW 50 million.

3. Determination

A. In full view of the Plaintiff’s loan amount No. 3 and the witness I and F of the first instance trial, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 50 million to F’s deposit account through I, 206, Oct. 19, 2006, to the Defendant.

arrow