(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.10.14 2019나54477

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 2020.10.14 2019나54477

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. The grounds for appeal by the plaintiff citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the allegations in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance was presented to this court, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance are justified.

Therefore, the reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, except for the addition of the following "2. Additional Determination" to the assertion that the plaintiff emphasizes or adds to this court, and therefore, it is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance.

2. Additional determination

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants did not have sufficient economic leave on April 2010, when he remitted money to the Defendants. Rather, the Defendants owned several real estate and had sufficient economic leave. However, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendants on the ground that the Defendants would sell real estate and pay money.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that he lent money between the parties to the judgment even if there is no dispute as to the fact that he received money, has the burden of proof as to the fact of the lending when the defendant contestss the defendant.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2014Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014). There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was transferred from the deposit account in the name of Defendant C to the account in the name of Defendant C.

However, the Defendants asserted that they were jointly used by the Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Nonparty D, and that the amount transferred from the Plaintiff’s account to the Defendant C’s account was not lent from the Plaintiff to the Defendant C’s account. Therefore, the Plaintiff must prove the facts of the lending. However, the circumstances alleged by the Plaintiff and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 80,000 to the Defendants, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3...

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 1972. 12. 12. 선고 72다221 판결

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.11.16 2017나9313

-대전지방법원 2020.07.29 2019가단18133

-부산고등법원 2018.05.31 2017나58987

-서울남부지방법원 2018.12.06 2018가단9467

-부산지방법원 2020.10.22 2020가단314799