logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단2850
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted from August 1995 to December 26, 1998, borrowed a total of KRW 35,000,000 on five occasions from the Defendant. From February 1, 1996 to December 30, 2009, the Plaintiff paid KRW 54,00,000 as the principal of the loan to the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant has a duty to pay the remainder of the amount paid by unjust enrichment to the Plaintiff, excluding the claim extinguished by prescription, to KRW 5,000,000 as of June 10, 2008, KRW 5,000,000 as of December 30, 2009, and delay damages therefor.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts stated in subparagraph 1 and the whole purport of the argument by the parties, there is no dispute between the parties, or according to the purport of the evidence stated in subparagraph 1 and the whole argument by the defendant, the defendant may acknowledge that the defendant lent a total of KRW 30,000,000 to the plaintiff four times from November 28, 1997. The plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,000,000 from the defendant on December 26, 1998.

Furthermore, according to the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and argument as to the repayment of the above loan, the Plaintiff’s payment of the above loan to the Defendant as follows: (a) KRW 5,00,000,00 on February 1, 1996; (b) KRW 4,00,000 on February 18, 198; (c) KRW 5,00,000 on August 13, 2002; and (d) KRW 5,00,000 on September 15, 2004; and (e) KRW 5,00,000,000 on October 15, 200, 6. 5,000,000 on June 10, 200, 7, 2009; and (e) KRW 30,300,000 on August 30, 200, 300.

B. In addition, the plaintiff alleged that he paid KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant on August 25, 1998, but it is not sufficient to recognize it only by the statement of evidence No. 6, and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise.

In addition, the plaintiff asserts that he paid 15,000,000 won to the defendant on December 26, 1998.

According to the purport of the part of the evidence No. 8 and the whole arguments, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff's husband C delivers the defendant's wife D with a face value of KRW 15 million.

However, the 15 million won paid by C is against the plaintiff's defendant.

arrow