logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.08 2015나37657
대여금 등
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. In full view of the text of evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 5, the following facts: (i) the Plaintiff has made a financial transaction several times for a long time by making an investment together in the land of E, the Defendant’s mother, and Jeju-do; (ii) the Plaintiff transferred KRW 30 million to a deposit account opened in the name of E on December 21, 2009; and (iii) transferred KRW 30 million to a deposit account opened in the name of the Defendant on March 15, 2010 (as above, KRW 1 and 2 money was used as the apartment sale price of the Defendant; (iii) the Plaintiff asserted that the money was lent to E; and (iv) the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking the return thereof (Seoul Central District Court 2013Na64099) but the other party lost it on the ground that it was final and conclusive.

2. On January 21, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent the amount No. 2 to the Defendant via a complaint, and sought the return of the claim, and on the premise that C is insolvent, the leased party is C through a written application for modification of the purport of the claim and the cause of the claim, and subsequently, C’s claim for the cancellation of the gift contract with the Defendant on the premise that C is insolvent, and the claim for the return of the loan against C in subrogation of C was filed by the preliminary claim. Accordingly, the Defendant sought the rejection of the change of claim.

However, it cannot be deemed that the difference between the parties to a dispute over the same living facts or economic interests before and after the change is merely the difference in the resolution method. ② The application for the change of the claim in this case was made at the time of the lapse of one year and eight months from May 13, 2013 in which the lawsuit in this case was brought, ③ the defendant asserts that there exists the obligation to settle between the plaintiff and C, and thus, the claim is the obligation between the plaintiff and C in the event of the change of the claim.

arrow