logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.03.10 2015나5577
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Defendant, who was in a de facto marital relationship with friendly C, lent KRW 25,000,000 to operate a restaurant, and then returned KRW 25,000 after seven months, and paid 8% interest per annum on December 27, 201, remitted KRW 25,000 to the Defendant’s account.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 25,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. According to the reasoning of the evidence Nos. 1 and 25, the fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 25,00,000 to the Nong Bank under the name of the Defendant is recognized, but it is insufficient to recognize such fact alone as the party who borrowed money from the Plaintiff.

Rather, the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence 3, Eul evidence 1 through 7 and the purport of the entire argument are as follows: ① Defendant and C jointly operated a restaurant from around 2011 to 2012; ② the money transferred by the Plaintiff appears to have been used as funds for restaurant business; ② Defendant and C appear to have transacted in connection with the operation of the restaurant using the Defendant’s account; ③ At the time, there were three accounts in the name of the State, but the said money was deposited with the State’s single parent’s account, and the said money was entirely transferred to the Defendant’s name. The said money was transferred to the Defendant’s account. The Defendant and C appears to have used the Defendant’s account at the time of living with Defendant and C, such as the Defendant’s living expenses, school expenses, etc. from the Defendant’s account under the name of the Defendant, and ④ at the time, it appears to have been deposited to have been deposited with the Plaintiff’s account under the name of the Defendant without any possibility of deposit the money between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s account.

arrow