(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.11.14 2018나70755

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) 인천지방법원 2019.11.14 2018나70755

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. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant around January 2005, and paid KRW 5 million among them, and thus, the remainder of the loan amounting to KRW 5 million and damages for delay should be paid.

B. On July 5, 2006, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was paid KRW 5 million from the Defendant on July 5, 2006, on the ground that the Plaintiff only maintained the claim that there was evidence for the delivery of money, and there was no other evidence as to the payment of money. 2) On the part of the claim for partial payment, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff was proved that the Plaintiff lent money. However, even if the Defendant recognized that the Plaintiff was wired money to the Plaintiff, it was against the fact that it was paid to the Plaintiff as compensation for having entrusted real estate in the name of a clan and caused many burdens.

In addition, there is no evidence to prove that the above money that the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff is the cause of repayment, and even if it is acknowledged as the cause of repayment, there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant’s loan exceeds the above five million won already repaid, and reaches ten million won.

3) As to the assertion on the receipt of interest, the Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 30,000 per month from April 18, 2007 to interest amount is proven. The Defendant did not dispute that 30,000 won was remitted once to the Plaintiff on the above day, but there is no evidence proving that the said money was the name of interest, and there is no evidence proving that the Defendant paid the Plaintiff money periodically after the above date. 4) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion on the payment of interest is insufficient to prove, and thus, cannot be accepted.

2. The defendant's preliminary defense and the plaintiff's second defense

A. It is true that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant even if the extinctive prescription expires.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2019.02.14 2018나7037

-대전지방법원 2019.06.11 2018나107426

-부산지방법원 2018.08.17 2018나41945

-수원지방법원 2020.08.13 2019나82790

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.10.23 2018가단104854