(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.23 2015가단119921

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 2016.11.23 2015가단119921

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 31,50,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from June 24, 2015 to November 23, 2016, respectively.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) around June 28, 2014, the first year during which she met or dies; (b)

9. 29. Report of Marriage, and 10.3.00.00.00.

B. On September 20, 2014 and September 22, 2014, the Plaintiff deposited KRW 40 million in total with the account designated by the Defendant, respectively.

C. On the other hand, on September 22, 2014, KRW 8.5 million was transferred from the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant to the Plaintiff’s National Bank Account.

On June 12, 2015, the Plaintiff filed a claim for divorce and consolation money with the District Court 2015da32463 against the Defendant, but on August 11, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were divorced, but the conciliation was concluded to waive the claim for consolation money in relation to divorce against each other.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1-5's entries, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On September 10, 2014, the Plaintiff asserted that, while the Defendant discussed the preparation for marriage with the Plaintiff, it is difficult for the Plaintiff to continue marriage due to the obligee without paying KRW 20 million loan to a person who operated a private stay business with KRW 20 million and KRW 20 million. Thus, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to lend KRW 40 million to the Defendant and demanded the Defendant to return the said amount. The Defendant agreed in advance to the Defendant to pay KRW 40 million to the Defendant as deposit. Even if not, the said money falls under the common property of the couple and is subject to the division of property for a short period of time that is six months, and economic activities have not been performed again, the Plaintiff’s claim for property division is unreasonable in view of the fact that the Defendant had contributed to economic activities, and the Defendant did not fully pay KRW 40 million,00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000.

B. Determination

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.07.08 2016가단5030

-서울중앙지방법원 2021.04.06 2020가단5164397

-서울북부지방법원 2015.11.24 2014가단24140

-춘천지방법원속초지원 2015.08.27 2014가합85

-서울서부지방법원 2015.05.21 2014나6194