logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.30 2016나3408
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. The plaintiff asserts that, on February 5, 2013, the plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the defendant on the part of February 5, 2013 without setting the due date, the defendant is obligated to pay the above amount and delay damages to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant asserts that according to the plaintiff's investment intent, the defendant only delivered the above money to C which carries on the coffee store business in Thailand, but does not borrow it from the plaintiff.

2. Even if there is no dispute over the fact that the parties to the judgment exchange money, the plaintiff claims the cause of receiving money as a loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, the plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the cause is a loan

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972). The Plaintiff is recognized as having remitted KRW 50 million to the Defendant on February 5, 2013, but the above facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the above amount is a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are considered to be comprehensively considered in the statement No. 1, namely, ① the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not demand documents, such as a receipt of promise to repay money after remitting the above money to the Defendant; ② the Defendant did not demand repayment of the money; ② the Defendant set up sales stores, such as coffee, etc. against the tourists in Thailand, and C did not pay operating income or failed to pay the money; ③ D, E, and F, who are the parties of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, stated the instant money in the same manner as investments in C’s coffee business; ④ the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant in the instant case, but May 30, 2016, issued a non-guilty disposition against the Defendant.

arrow