logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.11.10 2017나53599
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Plaintiff around January 2004 (hereinafter “instant primary loan”) is KRW 10 million.0 million.

(3) Around March 1, 2004, KRW 5 million (hereinafter “the second loan”).

(3) On December 1, 2004, around 5 million won (hereinafter “the third loan”) and the sum of the instant first and third loans is “each of the instant loans”.

(2) On March 2005, the Defendant repaid each of the interest and KRW 2.50,000 out of the interest and the interest on March 2005 on each of the instant loans to the Plaintiff.

3) On November 25, 2005, the Defendant paid KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff on the pretext of repayment of each of the instant loans. Pursuant to Article 479(1) of the Civil Act, the amount of KRW 4.25 million out of the above KRW 10 million was appropriated for the amount payable on March 2005 and the interest KRW 2.5 million from April 2005 to November 2005, and the remainder of KRW 5.75 million was appropriated for the principal of each of the instant loans. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining principal of each of the instant loans and delay damages therefrom.

B. Defendant 1) did not borrow each of the instant loans from the Plaintiff, and the borrower of each of the instant loans is the Defendant’s wife C. 2) The Defendant agreed on November 2005 to adjust the relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s payment of KRW 13 million to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant transferred KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff around November 25, 2005, and around January 25, 2006, issued one copy of the household check with a face value of KRW 3 million to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. First, as to whether the Defendant borrowed each of the instant loans, there is no dispute between the parties on the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5 million to the account in the name of the Defendant around March 27, 2004, and that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5 million to the account in the name of C around December 21, 2004, but there is no evidence No. 1.

arrow