logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.08.09 2016나14348
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. In full view of the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and Eul’s testimony and the entire purport of pleading, the Plaintiff is recognized to lend KRW 2,700,000 to the Defendant on August 13, 2015, and KRW 1,000,000 on September 3, 2015.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 2,700,000 won with 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 8, 2016 to the day of full payment after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff.

2. The defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserted that all of the above loans were repaid by paying KRW 6,375,847 to the Plaintiff from January 6, 2016 to March 4, 2016.

According to the statement Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 of 1-2, the defendant paid the above money to the plaintiff. However, considering the overall purport of the statement Nos. 3 through 6, and the testimony and arguments by the witness C of the party trial, the above details of repayment are about the money borrowed by the defendant from the plaintiff's name, smart savings bank, the amount borrowed from the case loan, and the mobile phone price opened in the name of the plaintiff, and it seems that the repayment of the claim is a claim separate from the loan of the cause of the claim.

Therefore, it is difficult to see that the Defendant’s ground for counterclaim alone fully repaid the loan, and the Defendant’s ground for counterclaim is without merit, unless there is any evidence otherwise.

B. The offset defense defendant argues to the effect that "the loans of the cause of the claim were used in the studio deposit, and as such, the defendant used the studio in common with the defendant and the defendant, the amount equivalent to 1/3 of the cost of the studio use shall be borne by the plaintiff, and since the defendant claims the return of the part to the plaintiff, it shall be offset against the plaintiff's loans by the automatic bond."

However, the witness C.

arrow