logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.04.23 2019가단18577
대여금 등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are the Plaintiff’s children.

B. (1) The Plaintiff transferred to Defendant B the total amount of KRW 66.5 million (=19 million on December 21, 2010) to the Defendants (i.e., KRW 47.5 million on February 2, 2017)

(2) The Plaintiff remitted to Defendant C KRW 3 million on September 30, 2010, and thereafter paid KRW 27 million in cash.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2-1, Gap evidence 6-1, Gap evidence 18, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (A) is the amount of KRW 66.5 million that the Plaintiff paid to Defendant B, and KRW 30 million that the Plaintiff paid to Defendant C.

(B) The Plaintiff loaned KRW 11 million to Defendant B in cash, and the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants prior to the instant case.

In the withdrawn suit (this Court Decision 2019Kadan6161), the Defendant B lent KRW 10 million to Defendant B in cash on the date on which it is unknown in 2011;

He borrowed money is a total of 7,50,000 won.

(B) Defendant B asserted that the Defendants were only donated KRW 19 million, and Defendant C was only donated KRW 30 million.

The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff lent KRW 11 million to Defendant B was not paid, and ② KRW 47.5 million transferred on February 2, 2017 is collected from the money deposited in the Plaintiff’s account.

B. (1) Determination is made by an agreement that a person who receives money shall return it to the same amount.

The fact that money was given and received ought to be proved by the Plaintiff, if the Defendant did not claim that money was borrowed, even if there was no dispute.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the money was lent solely by the fact that the money was remitted.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324 Decided January 24, 2018 (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018).

The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 65 million to Defendant B and KRW 30 million to Defendant C is earlier.

arrow