logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.03 2017나39336
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the amount ordered to be paid below is revoked.

Reasons

The Plaintiff asserted that the cause of the claim is attributable to the Defendant on March 31, 2016 and KRW 35 million on April 1, 2016.

However, the defendant paid 7 million won up to now.

Therefore, the defendant is obliged to pay the remaining loans of KRW 28 million to the plaintiff.

Judgment

There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5 million to the Defendant on March 31, 2016.

However, regarding the Plaintiff’s assertion that he lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant on April 1, 2016, the Defendant actively denied the fact, while the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to be considered as sufficient evidence to prove the above assertion in light of the following circumstances acceptable by the evidence, and there is no objective or obvious evidence.

Although the Plaintiff paid a loan of KRW 5 million to the Defendant’s deposit account on March 31, 2016, the Plaintiff did not have such remittance details as to KRW 30 million, which is a larger amount, and there was no objective data proving the lending of the loan, such as a loan certificate or receipt.

On March 31, 2016, following the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 5 million to the Defendant, there is doubt as to whether the Plaintiff could lend additional KRW 30 million at the time of April 1, 2016.

The balance of the above account was KRW 15,570,069 immediately after the Defendant remitted KRW 2 million to the Plaintiff on May 27, 2016, but there was no particular change in the balance of the Plaintiff’s deposit account before and after the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million.

Although the plaintiff asserted that he paid KRW 30 million in cash, it is difficult to believe that he paid such amount in cash instead of a check, and the plaintiff has not disclosed the source of the fund.

The plaintiff's interpretation shall be made in the recording book (A 11) submitted by the plaintiff.

arrow