logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.06.01 2016나10948
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion shall operate the secondhand shop with the trade name of C, and the defendant shall operate the secondhand shop with the trade name of D.

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 20,000 to the Defendant by account transfer to secure a large volume of high water.

Then, the Defendant returned only KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 13, 2014.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder of KRW 10,000 to the Plaintiff. Even if the Defendant is not a party who entered into a contract for the supply of scrap metal with the Plaintiff, the Defendant is obligated to return the said advance payment of KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff as the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act.

B. The defendant's assertion did not receive advance payment or loan from the plaintiff.

The Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 20,00,000 to the Defendant’s account on September 30, 2014 is the money borrowed from the Plaintiff by E from the Defendant’s account. On October 13, 2014, E loaned KRW 10,00,000 to the Plaintiff by lending the Defendant’s account.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the Plaintiff, who is responsible for the contractual party, paid the above KRW 20,000 to the Defendant as an advance or a loan.

According to the facts that there is no dispute between the parties, the statements in Gap evidence 1 through 4, and the testimony in Gap witness E by the court of first instance, the plaintiff is recognized as the trade name from July 10, 2012 to C, the defendant as the trade name from July 10, 2013 to D, and the fact that the plaintiff transferred KRW 20,000,000 from the business account to the D business account on September 30, 2014.

However, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the above 20,000,000 won was not an advance payment or loan to the defendant, but an advance payment or loan to the defendant only with the testimony of the witness F of the first instance trial, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

(b) The liability of the nominal lender under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, which is liable for the nominal lender, shall be the third party who trades by misunderstanding the nominal lender as the business owner.

arrow