logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2019.10.23 2019나201
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On July 14, 2016, Plaintiff (F before the opening of the name) lent KRW 10 million to E (F) on November 30, 2017.

Since E died on September 27, 2017, the Defendants, the inheritor, are obligated to pay the above loans and damages for delay to the Plaintiff according to the inheritance shares.

B. The Defendants’ mother, E, as a mother of the Defendants, had been in existence of the temple construction around July 2016, and the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate regarding the obligations arising at the time.

원고가 청구하는 돈은 대여금이 아니라 시줏돈으로 보인다.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the Plaintiff, on July 14, 2016, remitted KRW 10 million in total to E’s account on two occasions, and entered the Plaintiff’s account transfer details in the Plaintiff’s passbook that read “the borrowed money” and “the use for E office” in the Plaintiff’s account transfer details, and the Plaintiff’s calendar stated “the lending of KRW 10 million” in the Plaintiff’s month history.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances as revealed by the aforementioned evidence and the evidence set forth in No. 4 and the purport of the entire pleading, the above evidence A.

The facts of this subsection alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff transferred 10 million won to E account as a loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

The Plaintiff did not prepare a certificate of borrowing and did not enter into an interest agreement.

The fact that no interest agreement was made while lending KRW 10 million for a period of not less than one year is easily accepted as long as there is no close personal relationship, such as relatives.

E은 2016. 7. 당시 사찰창건을 하고 있었는바, 당시 E의 계좌로 송금된 돈에는 시줏돈도 포함되어 있었고, 그에 반해 E이 차용한 돈에 대하여는 차용증서를 작성한 것으로 보인다.

The Plaintiff’s entries in the remittance passbook and calendar can be arbitrarily stated by the Plaintiff, and only such entries may be made to the Plaintiff with regard to the said money.

arrow