(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.12.24 2019나5339

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) 의정부지방법원 2020.12.24 2019나5339

대여금

Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revoked part shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff was an officer of Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) who operates a communications-related business, and the Defendant was employed as an employee of the Nonparty Company.

Since then, the defendant retired from the non-party company in early 2010.

B. On August 18, 2010, the Plaintiff received housing mortgage loans and transferred KRW 150 million to the Defendant in relation to the Defendant’s business (hereinafter “instant remittance”).

C. On August 23, 2010, the Defendant returned KRW 6 million in relation to the instant remittance amount at the Plaintiff’s request. D.

On December 23, 2018, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. Determination 1 on the cause of claim 1) The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff made a loan to the defendant as the amount of the remittance in this case under the pretext of the loan, and sought payment of the balance of the loan 144 million won and damages for delay against the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff remitted the money as the amount of the remittance in this case under the name of the defendant's business in order to obtain investment profits. 2) The defendant asserts that the amount of the remittance in this case was transferred to the defendant as the amount of the transfer in this case under the name of the defendant's business in order to obtain investment profits. The purport of the whole argument as to whether the amount of the remittance in this case is the name of the plaintiff's loan to the defendant,

① In the first instance of the instant lawsuit, the Defendant asserted to the effect that the instant remittance was made as a donation without any condition, and it is difficult to accept in light of the empirical rule that the Plaintiff donated large amounts of money worth KRW 150 million to the Defendant, who was a subordinate employee of the workplace, to receive a loan against security.

② The amount of remittance in this case is related to the communications business operated by the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2021.02.03 2020나34750

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.05 2015가단152210

-제주지방법원 2014.11.14 2014가단6748

-인천지방법원 2019.07.10 2017가단38708

-인천지방법원부천지원 2014.12.24 2014가합4827