(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.06.28 2017가단4467

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 2017.06.28 2017가단4467

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 30, 2007, the Defendant lent KRW 30,000,00 to C, and on the same day, completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring forest land registration with the debtor C and the mortgagee as the defendant with respect to KRW 65,00,000,000 with respect to forest E-based forest land owned D (hereinafter “instant real estate”).

B. On February 14, 2008, the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage was cancelled due to the cancellation on the same date. On the same day, ① the maximum debt amount of KRW 177,00,00,000, the debtor F and the mortgagee as the Suwon Livestock Industry Cooperatives, ② the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage and ② the maximum debt amount of KRW 65,00,000,000, and the registration of establishment of a neighboring mortgage over the debtor C and the mortgagee as the defendant (hereinafter “mortgage of this case”).

C. On April 5, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 30 million to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “instant money”). D.

On April 23, 2013, upon the application of the Suhyup Livestock Industry Cooperatives, the voluntary auction procedure was initiated with Suwon District Court G on the instant real estate on April 23, 2013. On March 20, 2014, the instant real estate was sold to H. On March 20, 2014, and on April 28, 2014, the entire amount of KRW 108,356,259 was distributed to Suwon Livestock Industry Cooperatives, the creditor of the first priority.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the loan and damages for delay on the premise that the amount of this case is a loan to the defendant, the defendant asserts that the amount of this case is not a loan to the defendant, but a loan to the defendant who is his partner C, was paid as a substitute for the debt of the loan.

3. Determination

(a)in case of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, the remittance is based on various legal causes;

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.19 2018나16279

-서울동부지방법원 2018.05.23 2017나26890

-부산지방법원동부지원 2014.02.13 2013가단777

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.05.18 2016가합5883

-부산지방법원 2020.01.16 2019가단312254