(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.13 2015가단11953

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.13 2015가단11953

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion (1) The plaintiff is the defendant on March 9, 2005 18,861,000 won, and the same year.

4. June 19,800,000 each loan was made by the defendant, and at the time, the defendant promised to pay the borrowed amount within one year.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 38,661,00 won, which is the sum of each of the above loans, and interest for delay.

(2) Even if the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is not a loan to the Defendant, but an investment money to Co., Ltd. (hereinafter the non-party company) against the Defendant, the Defendant promised not only to actively encourage the Plaintiff to make an investment as the chief executive officer of the non-party company, but also to return the Plaintiff’s investment money.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 38,661,00 won, the total amount of investment, and interest for delay.

B. (1) We examine the loan argument.

According to the statements in Gap 1 and 2, the plaintiff 18,861,000 won on March 9, 2005 with a new bank account under the name of the defendant, and the same year.

4.6. 19,800,000 won are each deposited, but there is no evidence to prove that each of the above deposits was made as a loan (the above deposits are not loans to the defendant, but investments to the non-party company as seen below). The plaintiff's above assertion is rejected.

(2) We examine the assertion of a return agreement on the investment amount.

According to the statements in Gap 1, 2, Eul 1, and 2 (including additional numbers), the plaintiff deposited the above money with the defendant's account as shown in the above paragraph (1) in order to invest in the non-party company, and the defendant deposited it again into the non-party company's account, but in the case of the investment made on April 6, 2005, the defendant transferred it in advance to the non-party company's account, and thereafter, the plaintiff deposited it into the defendant's account.

However, the defendant would return the above investment to the plaintiff on behalf of the non-party company.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단23773

-서울서부지방법원 2016.07.21 2015가합182

-대구지방법원 2020.06.11 2018가단133417

-대구지방법원 2016.12.22 2015가합3888

-의정부지방법원 2017.09.13 2017가단3994