logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.01.19 2016나63682
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On July 25, 2007, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 9 million to the Defendant’s bank account.

B. On the same day, one million won was withdrawn in cash or by check from the Plaintiff’s bank account.

C. On April 2008, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant against “A, in collusion with C, by deceiving C to lend money of KRW 30 million necessary for C to take over the Plaintiff’s D points operated by the Defendant, and deceiving the Plaintiff of KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on June 26, 2007, and the Defendant obtained KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff, and the Defendant went to the Defendant with KRW 10 million.” On July 11, 2008, the Defendant was issued a disposition of suspending prosecution.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, each entry of Gap's 1 through 3 (including virtual number) and the purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff asserts that on July 25, 2007, the plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the defendant with the due date set after one month.

In light of the following circumstances, the court of first instance asserted that the Plaintiff did not mention the existence of the loan certificate at the court of first instance and submitted the loan certificate (No. 4) on July 18, 2007. The contents of the loan certificate are as follows: “The Defendant borrowed KRW 69 million from the loan to the Plaintiff by November 18, 2007 and would purchase and sell scrap metals and scrap metals until November 2007.” The Defendant’s loan amount is unclear; the date, amount, maturity date, etc. stated in the above loan certificate are completely different from the contents asserted by the Plaintiff as the cause of the claim in this case; the content of the loan certificate differs from that of the Plaintiff’s loan certificate to the Defendant in the first instance court; and the Plaintiff submitted it to the Defendant on July 18, 2007.

arrow