(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2017.11.14 2016가단106639

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2017.11.14 2016가단106639

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff (Counterclaim defendant)'s main claim and the defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s counterclaim are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted the Defendant’s account KRW 30 million on March 13, 2013, KRW 10 million on June 10, 2013, KRW 50 million on September 14, 2013, and KRW 50 million on the aggregate is no dispute between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff lent the above KRW 50 million to the defendant.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that he received the money from the plaintiff as the investment money in red mixed form, and that the plaintiff is obliged to pay the remaining investment money according to the oral agreement (such as that the plaintiff bears half of the user fee and all kinds of expenses) to the defendant.

3. Determination

A. In light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant, and rather, the money appears to have been invested in the Defendant. In light of the following circumstances, the part of the evidence Nos. 1 to 6 (including the paper number), 1 to 9, and 1 to 3, and the purport of the entire argument in the testimony of the witness C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

1) The Plaintiff, at intervals of three months, did not request the Defendant to prepare a loan certificate separately while remitting money at a three-month period. During that period, the Defendant did not receive a partial repayment of money or interest from the Defendant. 2) The Defendant leased the red mar culture from D and E along with F, and the number of the persons working in the form was “as soon as he/she was present at the place of his/her adjacent address,” and the number of the persons working in the form were “as soon as he/she was present at the place of his/her adjacent address and told the Defendant that they made a joint investment with

3) There is no clear evidence to deem that the Plaintiff had urged the Defendant to repay the “loan” from the time the transfer was made to the time of the instant lawsuit (if a loan is extended in full, the amount would not be certain, so real estate owned by the Defendant could have been provided as security.

B. The evidence presented by the defendant as to the counterclaim is sufficient to support the defendant and the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2021.02.18 2019가단23936

-울산지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단12365

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.01.15 2014가단12778

-춘천지방법원 2017.06.28 2017가합70

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가합6016