(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.30 2015가단8127

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.10.30 2015가단8127

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 12,650,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from May 2, 2015 to October 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion that until April 30, 2008, the plaintiff agreed to receive interest of KRW 20,000,000 from the defendant and lent it to the defendant as double a month, and received a certificate of loan from the defendant, and thereafter, the defendant additionally lent KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant. After that, the defendant did not pay only a part of interest through the account and did not pay in cash. Thus, considering that the defendant did not pay in cash, the amount stated in the claim should be paid from the defendant.

In regard to this, the defendant requested the plaintiff to exercise the right of payment, and prepared a certificate of loan of KRW 20,000,000 with the credit payment expenses, and there was no interest agreement, and there was no loan of KRW 5,000,000, and paid KRW 10,050,000 to the plaintiff by means of cash, account transfer, etc.

2. Determination

(a) The obligee asserting that the amount of the loan pertaining to the fact of the lending, the obligation to prove the existence of the agreement on interest shall be borne by the obligee claiming that the loan is made, and the obligor claiming that the obligation is

Therefore, the Plaintiff is responsible for proving the amount of the loan and the interest agreement, and the amount of the repayment, respectively.

B. As to the loan, in full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant prepared a loan certificate to the plaintiff on April 30, 2008 to prove that he borrowed KRW 20,000,000 to the plaintiff on April 30, 2008, and according to the above facts of recognition, the plaintiff lent KRW 20,000 to the defendant until April 30, 2008 (Therefore, the defendant's assertion that the above amount is against this principle and the above amount is excessive shall not be accepted). However, it is true that the statement in Gap evidence No. 6 is consistent with the fact that the plaintiff additionally lent KRW 5,00,00 to a third party, and it is merely that the third party dialogues with the plaintiff or another person, and it is not believed that it was a loan of KRW 5,00,000,000.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2021.02.05 2020가단523295

-대구지방법원 2020.02.19 2019나6476

-대전지방법원공주지원 2015.04.22 2013가합20430

-서울서부지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가합3085

-서울동부지방법원 2015.06.26 2015나20768