(영문) 대구지방법원김천지원 2016.01.20 2015가단5091

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) 대구지방법원김천지원 2016.01.20 2015가단5091

대여금

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) from January 28, 2015 to April 8, 2015, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 80 million to the Defendant; and (b) the Defendant, upon receiving the sales payment, decided to repay the said loan to the Plaintiff immediately; and (c) the Defendant, upon receiving the sales payment several times, did not repay the said loan to the Plaintiff even after receiving the sales payment.

Therefore, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff KRW 80 million and damages for delay.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff gave to the Defendant is not a loan, but an investment loan.

2. The judgment-based monetary loan contract is a scarcity and an infinite contract established when one of the parties agrees to transfer money to the other party, and the other party agrees to return money to the other party. Since the defendant denies the loan agreement as to the plaintiff's assertion of lending, the burden of proving that there was a lending agreement is against the plaintiff

According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant KRW 4 million on January 28, 2015, KRW 50 million on March 3, 2015, and KRW 26 million on April 8, 2015.

However, in full view of the following circumstances, which are acknowledged by the purport of each statement and the entire argument of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as follows: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare any specific disposition document, such as a loan certificate and a monetary loan contract; (b) the Plaintiff extended KRW 50 million to two times in addition to the Plaintiff’s first lending of KRW 4 million without having received repayment or a loan certificate; and (c) there is no easy understanding that the Plaintiff recommended the Defendant to make an investment to other employees of the Defendant company; and (d) it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant solely on the basis of the circumstances asserted by the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.09.22 2016나301262

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.09.04 2019가단15313

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.04.18 2017가단16213

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.11.07 2017가단116885

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.11.21 2019가단3408