(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.01.31 2018나808 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2019.01.31 2018나808

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion lent 4 million won to the defendant who was introduced by the branch on July 11, 2007. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the damages for delay, such as the statement in the purport of the claim, from September 10, 2007, which is the day after the repayment date of the loan principal and the payment date of the loan.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, there is no dispute between the parties, or according to the plaintiff's statement, the plaintiff holds a contract (Evidence No. 2, 100,000,000) stating that "the defendant and the loan amount: gold million won (Won 4,00,000): the contract date: July 11, 2007: : September 9, 2007; hereinafter "the contract of this case") and "the debtor: the defendant, the gold amount: the above amount is KRW ,00,00,000, and the above amount was borrowed and received on July 11, 2007 (hereinafter referred to as "each letter of this case"), and it is recognized that the defendant's seal imprint is affixed on the defendant's name as stated in the above contract and each letter of contract."

B. However, in full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by the statements in Eul evidence Nos. 2, 8, and 9, the result of the written appraisal by the appraiser C at the trial, and the purport of the entire pleadings, as alleged by the defendant, the defendant appears to have borrowed one million won from D, which is not the plaintiff, on July 11, 2007. The above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize the fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 4 million to the defendant on July 11, 2007, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

① The obligee’s column for the instant contract is public disturbance. There is no indication that the Plaintiff is the obligee. However, if the Plaintiff lent KRW 4 million to the Defendant, then the obligee’s column for the instant contract is public disturbance, and the Plaintiff is the obligee in each of the instant contracts.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2014.11.12 2014고단3276

-인천지방법원 2014.04.15 2014고정878

-서울동부지방법원 2015.05.06 2014나21139

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.11 2016가단10092

-부산지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나101