(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.29 2014가합19658

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.29 2014가합19658

대여금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (Selective Claim) 1) lent a total of KRW 979,200,000 to the Defendant from November 8, 2012 to July 16, 2013, and was refunded a total of KRW 742,00,000 from the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 237,200,000 for the remainder of the loan (the selective loan claim) from November 8, 2012 to July 16, 2013, the Plaintiff agreed to receive the Defendant a certain percentage of the principal and a certain percentage of KRW 979,20,000 for a total of KRW 742,00,000 from the Defendant, and thus, the Plaintiff sought reimbursement of KRW 237,200,000 from the remainder of the principal.

(Claim for Selective Contract). (b)

The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s claim was paid to the Defendant is an investment bond against C, and the Defendant’s assertion is merely a transferor of the investment bond and the proceeds.

2. Determination

A. First, according to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, it is recognized that the plaintiff received a total of KRW 979,200,000 from November 8, 2012 to July 16, 2013 from the defendant's account (hereinafter "the payment of this case") and a total of KRW 742,00,000 from the defendant.

B. Next, in light of the following facts as to whether the instant payment was paid as a loan or an agreed fee to the Defendant, Gap evidence Nos. 5, Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 13, witness D’s partial testimony, Defendant’s examination result, and the entire pleadings, the instant payment was deemed to have been invested by the Plaintiff in C via the Defendant. The Defendant borrowed the instant payment solely based on Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 8, witness evidence Nos. 3, 4, 6, and 6 through 8, witness evidence Nos. 4, and the Plaintiff’s personal examination result

It is insufficient to deem that an agreement was made to pay the principal and profits to the Plaintiff on the Defendant’s account, regardless of whether the principal and profits have been paid or not by C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

① The Plaintiff

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.07 2014나32198

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.24 2014나38332

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.04.17 2014가합104112

-부산지방법원 2018.12.19 2016가합2089

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.06.11 2013가단5000877