logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
대구지방법원안동지원 2014.06.25 2013가단3453
대여금
Text

1. Defendant C’s KRW 39,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s 29% per annum from September 24, 2005 to October 25, 2013, and the following:

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

(a) Indication of claims: To be as shown in the reasons for the claims;

(b) Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. As the Plaintiff, from August 4, 2005 to September 20, 2005, determined and lent a total of KRW 39 million to Defendant B by 29% per annum and on September 23, 2005, the Plaintiff sought payment of the above KRW 39 million and delay damages against Defendant B.

In full view of each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including paper numbers), it can be acknowledged that defendant C, the wife of defendant B, issued nine copies of a household check causing 39 million won in total face value, and the plaintiff possessed the above household check, and the plaintiff was subject to suspension of indictment in the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office on November 1, 2010 as a crime of alteration of securities and alteration of securities with the purport that the issue date of the above household check was arbitrarily issued, and that the plaintiff was subject to suspension of indictment in the Daegu District Public Prosecutor's Office.

However, in light of the following circumstances revealed in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff’s lending of money from the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff’s lending of money from the Plaintiff, ii) the Plaintiff’s account is insufficient to deem that the money deposited from the Plaintiff’s account was delivered to Defendant B solely based on the Plaintiff’s passbook, and iii) Defendant B did not have any statement directly or explicitly accepted the fact of borrowing, solely on the basis of the fact that Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, was in possession of the Plaintiff, the fact that the Plaintiff lent the above 39 million won to Defendant B, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

B. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices.

arrow