logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.07.11 2017가단227971
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) was awarded a contract with the Defendant for the construction of a comprehensive public relations center on the D’s ground of Chungcheongbuk-gun, Chungcheongnam-do.

B. On May 14, 2012, the Plaintiff received a subcontract from C for the interior works of interior works of interior works (hereinafter “instant subcontracted works”) by setting the construction amount of KRW 880 million and the construction period from May 14, 2012 to July 30, 2012.

Since then, the construction cost of the subcontracted project in this case was changed to KRW 913 million after consultation with the plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff completed the subcontracted project of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1-2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 2, Evidence No. 3-1 to 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. In the course of the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 280 million to the Defendant, at the Defendant’s request, including KRW 150 million on June 20, 2012, KRW 50 million on July 18, 2012, KRW 50 million on July 23, 2012, KRW 50 million on July 23, 2012, and KRW 30 million on October 4, 2012.

However, the Plaintiff received KRW 1,018,317,151 from C and the Defendant for the construction cost of the instant subcontracted project, which is more than the amount prescribed in the construction contract. As such, the Defendant is obligated to repay the Plaintiff KRW 174,682,849, which is calculated by subtracting KRW 105,317,151 (i.e., KRW 1,018, 317,151 - KRW 913,00,000) that the Plaintiff exceeded from the loan of KRW 280,000,000.

B. It is insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 280 million to the Defendant from June 20, 2012 to October 4, 2012, solely with the descriptions of the evidence Nos. 4, 6-1, 2, and 7, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(Decree) Even if the Plaintiff’s lease is recognized as the Plaintiff’s assertion, it shall be deemed that the statute of limitations for commercial claims has already been completed on December 19, 2017, and all of the loan claims have expired. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit.

arrow