(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.10.10 2017나58598

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) 인천지방법원 2018.10.10 2017나58598

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 130,000,000 and shall pay to the Plaintiff the full payment from September 14, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From June 10, 2013 to June 30, 2013, the Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, remitted total of KRW 78,00,000 to the account in the name of C (hereinafter “instant KRW 1”). At the time of each transfer, the Plaintiff indicated the Defendant’s name “B” as “B”.

B. On July 31, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred the total amount of KRW 90,000,000 in total to the account under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant KRW 2”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Issues of the instant case

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 130,00,000 (=168,000,000 (the amount of KRW 1) calculated by deducting KRW 90,000 from the sum of KRW 168,00,000 (the sum of KRW 1,000) of the respective amounts of the instant case (the sum of KRW 90,000) (the sum of KRW 1,78,000) and the amount of KRW 138,00,00 (the sum of KRW 168,00,000) which the Plaintiff was paid as principal) and damages for delay.

B. On the other hand, the defendant asserts that since each of the funds of this case is not borrowed by the defendant but directly invested in C which the plaintiff came to know through the defendant's introduction, it is not responsible for each of the funds of this case.

C. Therefore, the issue of this case is whether each of the funds of this case transferred by the plaintiff to the defendant is a loan to the defendant (i.e., whether it is an investment loan to C).

3. Determination

A. Considering the following circumstances, it is reasonable to view that each of the instant funds transferred by the Plaintiff is not an investment in C, but a loan to the Defendant, taking into account the following circumstances, comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions and the purport of the entire arguments in Nos. 1, 5 through 10, and No. 1 (including paper numbers).

1) The first gold source (78,000,000) of this case is in the name of the Plaintiff C.

유사 판례

-서울행정법원 2015.08.28 2015구합55028

-대구지방법원 2016.07.14 2016나301828

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2020.07.14 2019가단35410

-서울고등법원 2018.11.15 2017나2069466

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.05.16 2017가합5708