logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.12.19 2014나47909
대여금 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Judgment as to the primary cause of claim

A. The Plaintiff’s lending of KRW 90 million to the Defendant four times from November 4, 2010 to February 16, 2011 (hereinafter “instant lending”) did not conflict between the parties, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 90 million and the damages for delay.

B. As to this, the defendant, instead of paying the instant loan, transferred to the plaintiff all the claims and goodwill of the lease deposit and goodwill operated by the defendant in lieu of paying the loan of this case. Thus, the defendant asserted that the instant loan was fully repaid.

In full view of the overall purport of the arguments in the statement Nos. 2-1 through 9 and No. 7 of the evidence No. 2-2, the plaintiff and the defendant decided to operate the above No. 90 million won as the investment fund for the private loan of this case. Since the defendant thereafter transferred all the business rights for the private loan of this case to the plaintiff instead of paying the above No. 90 million won, the defendant's defense is justified.

C. Therefore, the plaintiff's primary claim is without merit.

2. Judgment on the conjunctive cause of claim

A. The plaintiff's assertion, in lieu of the repayment of the loan of this case, the defendant agreed to transfer the lease deposit claim of this case to the plaintiff and the business right of this case to the non-party E, and eventually E has the lease deposit claim and the business right of this case to the non-party E. Thus, the defendant shall pay the plaintiff KRW 90 million as compensation for tort.

B. The reasoning of the judgment reveals that the Plaintiff’s preliminary claim is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant transferred both the right to lease deposit and the right to operate the instant private letter to E by itself, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

arrow