logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.05.15 2015나643
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 2005, the Plaintiff loaned money of KRW 50 million from the Industrial Bank of Korea to the Defendant who is a pilot.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

By June 20, 2008, the defendant paid to the Industrial Bank of Korea the principal amount of KRW 17,504,000 and interest of the above loans.

The remainder of the principal and interest of the above loan (the principal of KRW 32,496,00) was repaid on August 1, 2008.

C. On August 25, 2011, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 40 million from community credit cooperatives, and the Defendant paid KRW 200,000 to community credit cooperatives each month as interest on the above loan from October 5, 201 to November 2013.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. The Defendant asserted that the loans of this case were fully repaid upon the repayment of all the above loans to the Industrial Bank of Korea, and against this, the Plaintiff agreed to settle the loans of this case with the Defendant at KRW 40 million, and sought the payment of the amount.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, and 4-1, and 4-2 of the evidence Nos. 3-1, 2, 3, and 4-1, and 4-2 of the evidence Nos. 3-2, the Defendant’s lending of KRW 34 million from the bank account under the Defendant’s name to August 1, 2008, and the Defendant remitted KRW 9,043,39 in total from September 24, 2008 to July 27, 2009, and KRW 24,635,807 in each account under C’s name.

The Defendant asserted that C repaid the above loans to the Industrial Bank of Korea on behalf of the Defendant with the above loans of KRW 34 million, and that the Defendant repaid the above loans of KRW 33 million to C, thereby extinguishing all the obligations of the instant loans. However, there is no ground to deem the above financial transaction was performed as the circumstance alleged by the Defendant, and there is no evidence to deem that the instant loans were repaid.

C. In full view of the above recognized facts, Gap evidence Nos. 3 through 7, Gap evidence Nos. 9 through 20, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the defendant and defendant.

arrow