logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.06.15 2016나4581
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is identical to the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing it as is by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff is KRW 65 million to the Defendant on July 14, 2010 (hereinafter “instant money”).

(2) On July 14, 2010, inasmuch as the instant land was sold on July 1, 2015, and the said land was not repaid, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 65 million and damages for delay. (2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant lent money to C on February 7, 2007 by remitting money to the account designated by C, the father of the Plaintiff, and C repaid KRW 65 million to the Defendant via the Plaintiff’s account on July 14, 2010. Therefore, the instant money was not leased to the Defendant.

B. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged prior to the determination, Gap evidence Nos. 5, 6, 7, 11, 15, 25 (including each number), Eul evidence Nos. 1, 7, 13, and 17, and the witness H, C’s testimony, and the entire purport of the pleadings, it is reasonable to deem that the instant money was leased to the defendant by the plaintiff.

1) The instant money was remitted from the account in the name of the Plaintiff to the account in the name of the Defendant, which was partially remitted by the Plaintiff from the Jinju City to the account in the name of the Defendant. Although the said land was originally owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff acquired ownership in the auction procedure following the application by the Jinju Agricultural Cooperative Co., Ltd., which was based on the right to collateral security, and unlike the entry in the register, there is no data to recognize that C acquired the said land in the name of the Plaintiff or that the said land was actually owned by C, unlike the entry in the register.

arrow