(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2017.04.13 2015가단11917

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) 수원지방법원여주지원 2017.04.13 2015가단11917

대여금

Text

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

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

Reasons

1. According to each of the statements and arguments stated in the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 4 of the underlying facts, it is recognized that the sum of KRW 21,50,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”) was remitted from the account under the Plaintiff’s name to the account under the Defendant’s name on July 13, 2015, KRW 1,300,000 on July 21, 2015, KRW 4,000 on August 10, 2015, and KRW 21,50,000 on August 12, 2015.

2. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) Since the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said money with the borrowed money. (2) or the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff the said money with the signature on the current status of debt settlement (Evidence A1). Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money with the agreed deposit to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant 1 did not borrow the instant money from the Plaintiff. 2) The instant money is part of the money that the Defendant Company received as a result of the outstanding amount to the customer who was comprehensively taken over from the Defendant Company, Defendant Company, and C embezzled the said money. Thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Determination

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 5 and 6 as to the claim for the borrowed amount, Eul invested 150 million won in the defendant company at the request of E, the representative director of the defendant company, and the representative director of the defendant company was the representative director of the defendant company. While substantially operating Eul, etc., the company F, the customer of the last month, which was closed on or around December 2013, transferred the outstanding amount of the transaction to the defendant company's new cooperation account in the name of C, which was the auditor of the defendant company. However, it is recognized that the instant money was partially transferred to the plaintiff's account in the above part of the transferred amount, and was transferred again to the defendant's account in the name of the defendant. In other words, the plaintiff's account in the name of the plaintiff is Chok, the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.02 2014가합14021

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.20 2014가합558603

-인천지방법원 2018.03.30 2017노4072

-서울서부지방법원 2017.09.14 2016나39273

-대전지방법원 2019.08.23 2018나108481