(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.09.16 2014가합14692

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.09.16 2014가합14692

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000,000 as well as 20% per annum from December 5, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. On September 25, 2012, the Plaintiff transferred a total of KRW 200 million (hereinafter “instant loan”) to the account in the name of the Defendant Company with the purchase fund for the “C commercial building” (hereinafter “instant loan”) did not conflict between the parties.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the loan of this case 200 million won was lent to the defendant company for the purchase of commercial buildings at the request of the representative director of the defendant company. Thus, the defendant company is obligated to pay 200 million won of the above loan principal and damages for delay.

In regard to this, the Defendant Company asserts that the instant loan was not borrowed by the Defendant Company, but was borrowed by D, the representative director of the Defendant Company, from the Plaintiff. However, the Defendant Company merely received the transfer of such money from the Plaintiff, and that there was no monetary loan relationship between the Plaintiff and the Defendant Company.

3. Determination

A. Since a certain person may remit money to another person, the fact that the said cause of transfer is a monetary loan between the remitter and the remitter, in principle, should be proved by the Plaintiff, i.e., the Plaintiff.

However, in this case, the defendant company did not dispute the fact that the plaintiff remitted money for the purpose of lending money, and argued that the borrower is not D. Accordingly, the matters to be proved by the plaintiff is the fact that the other party is not D but the defendant company.

B. In the instant case where a disposal document, such as scambry, loan certificate, etc., was not prepared, it is not easy to determine the parties to the said monetary loan contract.

However, first of all, the transfer of money to the account in the name of the defendant company is one of the valuable signs that can be seen as the borrower of the defendant company.

Moreover, the following circumstances do not conflict between the parties, or are described in the evidence No. 1 and No. 2.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.03 2015가단46155

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2021.04.28 2020가단64024

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.05.11 2015가단7653

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.19 2017고단8029

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.03 2016가합4339