logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.09.14 2018나1924
대여금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the defendant shall be revoked.

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

Reasons

1. The parties’ assertion asserts that, from April 18, 2016 to June 18, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 13 million to the Defendant in terms of the purchase cost of furniture, etc., cost of living, cost of materials for the Defendant’s works, cost of installing air conditioners, etc.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that he donated the above money under the pretext of the cancellation of the promise to travel in Jeju-do, such as the purchase cost of beds, vehicle repair cost, and consolation money due to the cancellation of the promise.

2. Even though there is no dispute as to the fact that money has been received between the parties to the judgment, the reason that the plaintiff received money is the consumption lease, and the defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to the consumption lease if he contests the cause of the receipt.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972, etc.) According to each of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff remitted each of the above money to the Defendant’s deposit account, and if the Defendant borrowed the money from the Plaintiff, it is recognized that the Plaintiff urged the Defendant to certify the contents of the instant money.

However, in light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned evidence’s respective entries in the evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7, and 10 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant at the time of transfer of the instant money, and the possibility that the Plaintiff would have donated the instant money without compensation to the Defendant cannot be ruled out. ② Around July 14, 2016, the Plaintiff sent a phone call to the Defendant, whether the Defendant refused to receive the Plaintiff’s phone, whether the Defendant was influored, when she was influored, and when she was influorous.

arrow