본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
부산지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나5205

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

Basic Facts

On March 30, 2018, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 7 million with the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “instant money”).

At the time of such deposit, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, C, and D owned 25% of the shares of the E Company, and C was the representative director, and the Defendant and D were the inside directors.

The plaintiff was also an internal director, but the same year.

3. 24. Retirement

2) [Reasons for Recognition] The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff borrowed the instant money through the Defendant, on the other hand, that C borrowed the instant money on the ground that “Internet Banking and Telecommunication Transfer should not take place,” and that the Defendant borrowed the instant money through the Defendant. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the following: (a) whether the Defendant is a borrower of the instant money; and (b) the statement of the evidence No. 1, No. 6-1, No. 11, No. 19, and No. 31; and (c) the testimony and argument of the witness at the trial; (b) it is reasonable to deem that the borrower of the instant money is the Defendant (the evidence submitted by the Defendant alone alone lacks to establish the said recognition; and (c) there is no evidence to reverse it.

(2) The witness witness C testified to the purport that he/she is not the person who requested the Plaintiff to lend the instant money, but the Defendant or D. On June 26, 2018, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to pay the instant money by sending text messages, but the Defendant did not answer. On August 2, 2018, the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to again send text messages to the Defendant, and the Defendant responded to “D directors (D)” and did not mention C. The Plaintiff was aware of a number of money transactions with C through the past account, and there was no evidence to acknowledge that there was a problem regarding the use of the instant money by the Defendant’s assertion at the time of deposit (see, e.g., subparagraph 1).