(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.11.25 2015가합389

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) 전주지방법원 2016.11.25 2015가합389

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Plaintiff’s assertion

The summary of the Plaintiff’s transfer from November 15, 2012 to February 28, 2013 to the Defendant under the name of C, D, E, etc., and lent a total of KRW 180 million to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obliged to pay to the Plaintiff an amount equivalent to KRW 180 million.

Judgment

The fact that each deposit was made under the name of the Defendant, the total amount of KRW 30 million,00,000 under C on November 15, 2012, KRW 50,000,000 in the name of D on January 8, 2013, KRW 10,000 in E in the name of E on February 25, 2013, KRW 180,000 in the name of E on February 28, 2013 (= KRW 30,000,000 in KRW 50,000 in the name of E on February 28, 2013), or that there was no dispute between the parties or is recognized by the statement under subparagraph 1.

However, the following circumstances are revealed by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the overall purport of the arguments in Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3 (including each number), i.e., ① a loan transaction with the Plaintiff from the end of December 2012 to July 2014 through the above North Korean bank account in the name of the Defendant was made several times. The Defendant asserted that the above North Korean bank account was used by F in a partnership relationship with the Defendant, and the Plaintiff also recognized that the above deposit and withdrawal transaction was a transaction with F, barring any special circumstance to deem that the Plaintiff lent only the above KRW 180 million deposited in the name of C, D, and E to the Defendant; ② a loan of KRW 180,000 for three months without fixing the maturity or interest payment period is difficult to accept in light of transaction practices or empirical rules; and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff offered testimony to the Defendant and evidence No. 800,800,000,000 won.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is not accepted.

The conclusion is.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.08.23 2015가단122880

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.17 2014가단83751

-서울서부지방법원 2018.07.05 2018나30706

-전주지방법원 2016.10.21 2015가합921

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2020.02.04 2019고정881