logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.12.04 2015나2740
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. From the beginning of December 2005, the Defendant received investment from the Plaintiff and Nonparty C, who is the Plaintiff’s birth, and operated the recreation room, E’s trade name (hereinafter “instant recreation room”) in Daejeon-gu D. The Defendant operated the lottery room on the upper floor of the instant entertainment room, where the Plaintiff’s children sell gift certificates, etc. (hereinafter “instant lottery room”).

B. During running the instant entertainment room with the Plaintiff and C, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 250,000 to the Plaintiff daily, and KRW 150,000 to C, under the pretext of collecting investment in the instant entertainment room and paying dividends.

C. In accordance with the above agreement, the Defendant remitted 250,000 won to the Plaintiff each day from December 10, 2005 to December 31, 2015, and 50,000 won on January 2, 2006, and 2,000,000 won on January 8, 2006, respectively, to C from December 20, 2005 to December 31, 2005, respectively. The Defendant remitted 150,000 won to C from December 20, 2005 to December 31, 2005, and 60,000 won on January 6, 2006, 200, and each of them was transferred to C.

However, the entertainment room in this case was accumulated due to business depression, and the control of the country was strengthened due to the strengthening of the operation method of the entertainment room in this case, and eventually closed the business around February 2006, and the defendant remitted KRW 7,000,000 to the plaintiff on February 24, 2006.

E. Since August 25, 2014, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 18,000,000 from the instant lottery site in operating the said entertainment room three times from August 25, 2014, however, the Plaintiff responded to the effect that the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay KRW 18,00,000 to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including paper numbers), the testimony of a witness at the trial and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion.

arrow