(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.09.21 2015가단6674

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) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.09.21 2015가단6674

대여금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 60 million to the account under the name of the Defendant on October 8, 2014 is no dispute between the parties.

2. Assertion and determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion was made with the defendant's wife who represented by the defendant Eul and then remitted 60 million won as a loan. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay 60 million won as a loan to the plaintiff.

C did not have the authority to act on behalf of the defendant.

The defendant is obligated to repay the borrowed amount to the plaintiff, as the expression agent with the basic right of attorney is established, even if the ordinary right of attorney is the common right of attorney.

In addition, even though the holder of a deposit account has a duty to manage the deposit account in good faith and prevent damage from being caused by the transaction by a person other than himself/herself using his/her deposit account, the defendant is responsible for compensating the plaintiff for the damage caused by the negligence that he/she did not have interest in the financial transaction by deceiving the plaintiff and deceiving him/her of the 60 million won.

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion or expression agent’s assertion as to a loan claim is premised on the premise that C entered into a monetary loan contract with the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant, and there is no evidence to acknowledge this. Even if C entered into a monetary loan contract on behalf of the Defendant on behalf of the Defendant, there is no evidence to acknowledge that C had granted C the right of representation to borrow KRW 60 million, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff took measures such as confirming the Defendant’s power of representation or confirming the intent of borrowing while lending the amount of KRW 60 million or more, and there is no evidence to deem that the Plaintiff took measures, such as confirming the Defendant’s power of representation or confirming the intent of borrowing. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff should be deemed to have granted the right of representation

The plaintiff's claim in this part.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.04.21 2015가단115265

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.25 2019나61771

-서울동부지방법원 2020.12.18 2020나25491

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.07.11 2016가단11146

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.11.17 2015나967