logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.10.14 2020나645
대여금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On April 30, 2013, upon C’s request, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 20,000,000 in the new bank account (Account Number D) under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “instant money”).

On February 9, 2014, the Plaintiff was issued by C a certificate of borrowing that “C borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff on August 9, 2014, with interest rate of eight percent per annum, and interest rate of KRW 1,500,000 from April 30, 2013 to February 9, 2014.”

[Ground for recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings, and the purport of the argument of the plaintiff's assertion and the defendant are between the plaintiff's husband and wife. Since C lends the money of this case to C and the defendant as it requires living expenses to be reduced to the defendant, the defendant shall jointly and severally pay the 20 million won and interest or delay damages.

Even if the Defendant did not borrow the instant money, it was used by the Defendant and C in a de facto marital relationship for daily home life, so the Defendant is jointly and severally liable pursuant to Article 832 of the Civil Act.

In light of the following circumstances revealed prior to the determination of the allegation of loan, namely, the Plaintiff wired the instant money upon request from C to borrow money, and the loan certificate also provides the Plaintiff with the Plaintiff by entering himself/herself in the passbook under the name of the Defendant, it is difficult to see that the Defendant borrowed the instant money from the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the Plaintiff deposited the instant money in the passbook under the name of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge the fact of loan by the Defendant.

A de facto marital marriage in the relevant legal theory regarding the claim of joint liability for daily family affairs has a subjective intention to marry between the parties, and objectively, there is a substance of marital life that can recognize marital life in terms of the order of family in terms of social norms, and a couple who has legally married is separate.

arrow