logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.31 2016가단5059511
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion and the Defendant are as follows: (a) around February 4, 2013, with the introduction of a branch seal; or (b) until November 2013.

The Plaintiff extended a total of KRW 50 million to the Defendant, including the sum of KRW 29950,000 as indicated below, and the sum paid in cash directly.

Method of lending (2010,000 won) 1

5. 30 C Transfer from our bank account in the name of the defendant to the Cit Bank account in the name of the defendant 2.

. 30.35 3

3. 430 4

8.30 5

6.4. 330 C Transfer from the bank account in the name of the defendant to the new bank account in the name of the defendant 6.

7. Transfer from the 130 C bank account in the name of the Defendant to the Defendant’s foreign exchange bank account;

8. Transfer from the Korean bank account under the name of 50 C to the Defendant’s Cit Bank account 8.

9.7. 200. 7. 10. 7. 10. 7. 7. 10. 7. 7. 10. 7. 7. 7. 7. 7. 7. 7. 7. 7. 50. 11. 11. 300. 11. 30, 121. 4. transfer from the national bank account under the name of the defendant to the seed bank account under the name of the defendant from the new bank account under the name of the defendant to the seed bank account under the name of the defendant 2,995. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff a loan of KRW 50 million and delay damages.

B. During the period in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed with, the Plaintiff used the Defendant’s credit card as well as the bank account in bad credit standing, and there was no credit card. Accordingly, the Plaintiff sent money to the Defendant for the payment of the card price used by the Plaintiff and paid out the outside expenses, but there was no fact that the Plaintiff lent the money claimed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant

2. The sole statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 9 alone is insufficient to recognize that the money remitted from the account under the name of the defendant to the account under the name of the defendant was a loan to the defendant, and it is not sufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent money in cash to the defendant in addition to the above remitted money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the plaintiff's assertion is with merit.

arrow