logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.07.12 2017나4032
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. Basic facts

A. On February 6, 2009, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to the account under the name of the Defendant.

B. The husband C of the Defendant was killed on March 14, 2009 while the Defendant was serving as the captain, while running the business of building site development for the apartment complex.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1, 2 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. On February 6, 2009, the Plaintiff claimed that medical expenses of husband C need to be borne by the Defendant and lent KRW 50 million to the Defendant’s account.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion did not borrow KRW 50 million from the plaintiff as her husband's medical expenses.

Although it was true that C was dead from being treated in the name of the captain, at the time, the Defendant did not have to pay medical expenses, and the Plaintiff was paid the money borrowed from C in the course of business with C and apartment complex site development project.

C. Determination 1) Even if it is recognized that there was a number of money between the parties, when the Defendant contests the Plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the lending was made under the name of the loan (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 2013Da73179, Sept. 15, 2015). 2) Since the Defendant asserts that there was no means to borrow KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff is liable to prove that the lending was made under the name of the loan.

However, in light of the following circumstances, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant in light of the aforementioned basic facts, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 4, 5, and 6, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

or the plaintiff.

arrow