(영문) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.09.25 2014가단14404

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) 창원지방법원통영지원 2015.09.25 2014가단14404

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion made on December 20, 2007 lent a total of KRW 35 million to the defendant on December 20, 2007, and the defendant is obligated to pay such loans and damages for delay.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1, 3, and 4, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35,100,000,000,000, including the said KRW 35,5,000,00,000 (hereinafter “the instant payment”) asserted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant’s Yongnam Agricultural Bank account on December 20, 207 can be acknowledged.

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances, as to whether the Plaintiff paid the instant payment to the Defendant as a loan, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant payment was a loan to the Defendant solely on the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff or the circumstances incurred by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

On Nov. 2, 2007, the Defendant’s wife C filed a lawsuit against her own by Changwon District Court Decision 2007Gahap2011, which sought “The payment of KRW 77 million for the remainder, etc. of the land E and its ground buildings (hereinafter “the building, etc. of this case”) in Tong Young-si, which was the ownership of Changwon District Court D, and requested the Plaintiff to pay the instant payment in order to reach an agreement thereon.

At the time, the Plaintiff was residing in the instant building, etc., and the Plaintiff voluntarily stated that he deposited in the Defendant’s account upon C’s request.

C filed a complaint against the Plaintiff on the charge of embezzlement, and C in the course of the investigation by the head office of the original branch office of the District Prosecutors' Office, stated on June 3, 2015 that “The Plaintiff deposited KRW 35 million to the Defendant is the purchase price of the instant building, etc.” and the testimony in this court is also the same.

As to the instant building, etc., the Plaintiff around March 2009.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가합103819

-수원지방법원 2016.06.16 2015나30722

-대구지방법원 2017.06.28 2016나10153

-인천지방법원 2019.04.10 2018나62723

-대구지방법원 2018.04.04 2018나372