logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2016.01.14 2015가단103928
대여금반환 등 청구
Text

1. Defendant C: (a) KRW 50,020,931 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from March 31, 2015 to May 1, 2015; and (b) May 2, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and D are their own wholesalers, Defendant B’s children, Defendant C’s deceptive act, and there were many financial transactions between the Plaintiff and D.

B. On June 9, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 39,921,00 from Han Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “I Bank”), and transferred KRW 39,400,000 to the Defendant B’s account on the same day. ① On September 30, 2010, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 20,000 from Han Bank, and then transferred KRW 19,320,000 to the Defendant B’s account on the same day.

C. On January 26, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) provided that one bank had registered the creation of a neighboring apartment under 1123, 1103, the Plaintiff owned, with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million; (b) Defendant C as the primary debtor; (c) borrowed KRW 50 million from one bank (hereinafter “instant loan”); and (d) remitted KRW 49,420,000 to D’s account on January 26, 201.

On March 30, 2015, the Plaintiff subrogated to the Han Bank for KRW 50,020,931 of the principal and interest of Defendant C.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap's 1 through 4, the purport of whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. As seen earlier, the Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 5,872,00 to Defendant B, and sought payment of the loan. 2) The Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,8720,000 to Defendant B’s account. However, the Plaintiff asserted that (i) there was a multiple monetary transaction relationship between the Plaintiff and D; and (ii) Defendant B was merely using Defendant B’s passbook with the loan of money from the Plaintiff; (iii) the Plaintiff asserted that “D lent money to the Plaintiff due to the issue of Defendant B’s house office; (iv) the applicant for the loan appears to have been D; and there was no evidence to prove that D borrowed money as Defendant B’s agent; and (iii) there was no real estate purchased by Defendant B around the loan.

arrow