(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.13 2013가합84679

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 2014.05.13 2013가합84679

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 200 million to the defendant on April 18, 2003 without having agreed interest to the defendant, and that he sought payment of the above loan KRW 200 million and damages for delay. The defendant asserts that the above money was donated to the defendant, and that even if it is a household loan, the extinctive prescription has expired.

B. (1) The facts that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 200 million to the Defendant on April 18, 2003 are not disputed between the parties. However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the result of the Defendant’s personal examination and the entire purport of the pleadings by this court are as follows: ① the Plaintiff, as the Plaintiff was in full knowledge and knowledge about around 2000 and the Defendant, did not enter into a specific agreement to pay the Defendant money such as interest agreement and due date; ② there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the said money before 2013; ② there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to pay the said money, the remittance of the said money and evidence No. 2-1, 2, 3, and 3, and the result of the Defendant’s personal examination are insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the said money to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove otherwise.

(2) Even if the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant, since the Defendant’s defense of the extinction of prescription period was a defense, it would be possible for the Plaintiff to exercise his right from April 18, 2003, which was the date when the Plaintiff lent the above money to the Defendant without a due date agreement. Since it is apparent in the record that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on October 1, 2013, which was ten years after the filing of the lawsuit of this case, the above loan claim had already expired prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case, and therefore, the Defendant’s defense was well-grounded.

As to this, the Plaintiff from around 2005 to around 201, the Defendant’s communication with one another was interrupted.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2017.12.19 2016가단11614

-수원지방법원 2015.12.03 2014나38132

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.09.29 2016가단58065

-대구고등법원 2017.03.23 2016나1527

-서울고등법원 2018.03.28 2017나2056194