(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2017.05.17 2016가단9344

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) 광주지방법원목포지원 2017.05.17 2016가단9344

물품대금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) on July 20, 2014, the Defendant received a loan certificate (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”) issued from the Defendant as of July 26, 2013 on the date of borrowing; and (b) on December 31, 2014, as of December 31, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million in total to the Defendant between July 29, 2014 and September 4, 2014; and (c) the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 30 million and delay damages.

B. It was true that the Defendant’s assertion prepared and delivered the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff, but it was not paid KRW 30 million by the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is unreasonable.

2. The fact that the loan certificate of this case, which is a disposal document, was prepared between the plaintiff and the defendant, is not a dispute between the parties. Thus, the court should recognize the existence and content of the contents as stated, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that the contents can be denied.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff did not pay 30 million won directly to the Defendant as stated in the loan certificate of this case.

The plaintiff asserted that he paid KRW 30 million to the defendant via Nonparty C, and that he again paid the above money to C under the defendant's direction, and that he lent it to the defendant.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings, the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 30,30,000,000 to his/her son during the period from July 29, 2014 to September 4, 2014 can be acknowledged.

However, the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone was paid to the Defendant KRW 30 million out of the above money paid to C by the Plaintiff.

It is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff paid the above money to C at the defendant's instruction, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff is about 30 million won to the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.11.11 2015가단235479

-수원지방법원 2020.08.13 2020가단510870

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.04 2013가단310425

-대구지방법원 2017.02.09 2016나7713

-서울북부지방법원 2015.08.21 2015나135