logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단104944
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs' assertion

A. Around June 2012, Plaintiff A loaned KRW 31,000,000 to Defendant C as of July 31, 2013.

B. On June 17, 2015, Plaintiff B determined KRW 15,000,000 as interest rate of KRW 0.45% per month and lent to Defendant D.

C. Therefore, Defendant C is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 31,00,000 and damages for delay thereof, and Defendant B is liable to pay the loan KRW 15,000,000 and damages for delay thereof to Defendant D respectively.

2. Determination

A. The loan for consumption is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the ownership of money or other substitutes to the other party, and the other party agrees to return such kind, quality and quantity as such (Article 598 of the Civil Act). Thus, it is natural that the other party agrees to the above point.

(Supreme Court Decision 2010Da41263, 41270 Decided November 11, 2010). Moreover, in cases of remitting money to another person’s deposit account, such remittance may be made based on various legal causes, such as loan for consumption, donation, repayment, etc. Therefore, it cannot be readily concluded that there was a consensus among the parties to a loan for consumption solely on the fact that such remittance was made (see Supreme Court Decision 2012Da30861, Jul. 26, 2012). The burden of proving that such an agreement has been reached is asserted against the party that the remittance was made based on the loan for consumption.

B. According to the evidence Nos. 4-1, 2, 6-1, 2, 7, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 6-1, 7, and 10 of the evidence Nos. 4-1, 6-1, 7, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the sum of KRW 40,000,000 to Defendant C on June 20, 2012, and KRW 30,000,000 on August 20, 2012, and that Plaintiff B remitted KRW 15,00,000 to Defendant D on June 17, 2015 is recognized.

C. However, as to whether Plaintiff A had entered into a loan agreement for consumption between Defendant C and Defendant D on each of the above transfers.

arrow