logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.17 2015나26544
대여금
Text

1. The judgment of the first instance is revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2007, C, the husband of the Defendant, entered into an apartment supply contract with the Military Mutual-Aid Association, which is the implementer, on the part of the Defendant, with respect to “I” of the G block G G in Young-si, Young-si.

According to the above apartment supply contract, it is stipulated that the down payment of KRW 157,800,000 should be paid to the National BankF account.

B.D wired the total of KRW 157,800,000 to the national bank account on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) received a request from the Defendant to lend the down payment for apartment sale from October 2007. The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to lend money from D to the Defendant again, but for convenience, to transfer money directly to the account designated by D. Under this agreement, D wired money to the account designated by the Defendant. As such, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 157,80,000 to the Defendant on October 19, 2007. Since the Defendant repaid KRW 75,080,000 to the Plaintiff on November 17, 2008, the Defendant paid KRW 82,720,000 to the Plaintiff and paid damages for delay. 2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant’s husband, the Defendant’s husband, was entitled to file an application for special sale to the Defendant with the Defendant, by selling the down payment to the Defendant, with the Defendant’s share of KRW 40,000 with the Defendant’s right to sell the down payment.

Accordingly, the husband of the defendant concluded the above apartment supply contract, and the plaintiff paid the down payment determined by the contract.

However, according to the plan, the plaintiff did not sell the right of sale with the premium attached, and the defendant terminated the above apartment supply contract on November 6, 2008 at the plaintiff's request, and the plaintiff and the defendant on November 2008.

arrow