logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.04.10 2018나51553
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. The Plaintiff and the Defendant were married around October 2012, but a consultation was married around July 2014.

B. On March 3, 2015, the Plaintiff respectively remitted to the Defendant KRW 20 million, KRW 10 million on October 29, 2015, KRW 70 million on October 31, 2015, and KRW 70 million on October 31, 2015.

C. On October 31, 2015, the Defendant delivered KRW 70 million received from the Plaintiff to Nonparty C as it is, and subsequently, returned KRW 91 million in total from C from November 16, 2015 to January 30, 2016, and remitted KRW 90 million in total to the Plaintiff seven times.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 6 through 9, Eul evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. In light of the above basic facts as to the cause of the claim, and the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4 as a whole and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff can be acknowledged as having lent KRW 20 million to the defendant on March 3, 2015 (hereinafter "the loan of this case"). Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff the loan of this case 20 million and the damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense of payment

A. The Defendant promised to pay KRW 70,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff’s repeated demand for payment, if the Defendant extended additional loan to the Plaintiff, and accordingly, borrowed KRW 70,000 from the Plaintiff on October 31, 2015, additionally borrowed KRW 70,000 from the Plaintiff on November 16, 2015 to January 30, 2016, and repaid all of them by remitting KRW 90,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff via the above C. (2) The Plaintiff lent to the Defendant on October 29, 2015, and on October 31, 2015, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 70,000,000 to the Plaintiff through the Defendant’s proposal.

The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 90 million from the Defendant as each of the above loans and earnings, and was not repaid the instant loans on March 3, 2015.

B. We examine the judgment, the above basic facts, and the parties.

arrow