(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단7599

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) 수원지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단7599

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On August 2, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on November 1, 2010, with the due date for payment fixed and lent as of November 1, 2010. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages therefor.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff paid 30,000,000 won in cash to the Defendant around August 2, 2010 is not disputed between the parties. However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings (including the fact that there is no dispute between the parties) in the evidence No. 2, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent 30,000,000 won to the Defendant solely with the above facts of recognition and the above evidence, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

① When paying KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant, the Plaintiff did not completely prepare a loan agreement for consumption or a loan certificate, did not provide for the maturity or interest, and did not otherwise take any measures to refund money from the Defendant.

② The Plaintiff and the Defendant maintained a tobacco relationship from around 2009 to the end of 2010. When the Plaintiff paid the Defendant KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendant, the time when the Plaintiff and the Defendant were in a tobacco relationship. Therefore, the Plaintiff may be deemed to have paid the said money to the Defendant in order to hear the horses that it is difficult for the Plaintiff to take a family form as well as to maintain a tobacco relationship with the Defendant.

Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the Plaintiff offered money to the Defendant as the lending.

③ From the end of February 2010, the Plaintiff appears to have been in contact with the Defendant until February 2016, and demanded repayment of the loan to the Defendant when around February 2016.

④ Even based on the content of the Kakao Stockholm conversation (Evidence A2) submitted by the Plaintiff, it is difficult to readily conclude that the content of the conversation, based on the premise that the Defendant agreed to return the said KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff beyond the intentional responsibility.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.09.05 2017가단17092

-부산지방법원 2018.07.18 2017나63634

-춘천지방법원 2019.04.10 2018나1371

-서울북부지방법원 2019.07.18 2018가합27250

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.01.14 2019가합541747