logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
청주지방법원 충주지원 2017.02.08 2016가단1864
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 5,456,80 in total to the Defendant nine times from December 24, 2007 to November 3, 2008, and thus, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 55,456,80 and delay damages therefrom against the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant borrowed the Defendant’s name and directly carried out the obligees’ debt collection-related business. Of the money deposited by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s account, part of the money was used as the cost of performing the business related to debt collection under “C”.

In addition, the remaining parts are that the defendant lent money to D, who is the plaintiff, and the defendant received repayment from D through the plaintiff.

Ultimately, the defendant is unable to respond to the plaintiff's claim on the ground that it borrowed money from the plaintiff.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff did not dispute over the transfer of KRW 3,60,00 on December 24, 2007 to the account under the name of the Defendant, KRW 3,600,00 on December 24, 2007, KRW 4,98,00 on February 1, 2008, KRW 650,00 on February 15, 2008, KRW 797,00 on April 7, 2008, KRW 36,000 on April 22, 2008, KRW 200,000 on May 16, 200, KRW 1,30,000 on May 28, 200, KRW 1,300 on May 1, 200, KRW 100 on October 1, 200, KRW 100 on each of the parties’ respective certificates of transfer; or

However, considering all the circumstances revealed in the pleadings of this case, such as the details of monetary transactions between the parties, relations between the parties, and the contents of the defendant's assertion, the evidence alone submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

Therefore, the prior plaintiff's assertion on a different premise is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit.