logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.07.22 2015나2028300
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the amount ordered to be paid below shall be cancelled.

Reasons

1. The following facts in the summary of the case are not disputed between the parties, or acknowledged based on Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 4, 6 (including, if any, serial numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul evidence Nos. 4 to 8, and witness G of the first instance trial as a whole on the testimony of some of the witnesses G of the first instance trial.

A. On April 1, 199, with respect to H apartment 29 Dong 1103, Gangnam-gu, Seoul, which is owned by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff created a collateral of KRW 120 million with respect to the maximum debt amount, and was loaned KRW 100 million from the Han Bank on April 3, 1999.

B. On September 4, 2001, the Plaintiff created a right to collateral security of KRW 120 million with respect to the said H apartment with the Han Bank, and additionally loaned KRW 100 million with the Han Bank.

C. Meanwhile, the Defendant, from December 12, 2003 to October 11, 2013, transferred the sum of KRW 39,900,000,000 to the account under the name of O and P by the Plaintiff’s mother, as indicated in the attached Table “amount of repayment” column, as indicated in the attached Table.

2. The plaintiff's loan;

A. On the other hand, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to the Defendant totaling KRW 85 million out of KRW 100,000,000,000,000,000 owned by the Plaintiff, and KRW 15,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 were loaned from the Han Bank. On the other hand, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff was a loan, while the Plaintiff asserts that KRW 200,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,000,0

B. As seen earlier, the facts regarding the financing of the loan claimed by the Plaintiff (i.e., the progress and details of the loan from the bank) are recognized. In light of the following facts and the following facts, which are acknowledged by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence 2, 3, and 6 as well as the witness K’s witness’s testimony, and the relevant facts based thereon, the Plaintiff’s loan amounting to KRW 100 million on April 7, 199 and KRW 100 million on September 4, 2001 to the Defendant.

arrow