logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.11.14 2018나4223
대여금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants is dismissed in entirety.

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

purport, purport, and.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 5, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 15 million to the account in the name of Defendant C, the spouse of Defendant B, to the account in the name of Defendant C (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. On February 5, 2008, Defendant B received KRW 1,000,000 from D. The payment date was prepared and delivered on March 5, 2008 a loan certificate stating “B before D” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

C. The Defendants remitted total of KRW 14 million from February 28, 2008 to March 21, 2008 to E’s account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 3, Eul evidence 1 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants lent the instant money to the Defendants via D, one’s own agent, but did not repay it. 2) The Defendants borrowed the instant money from E, and upon the request of E, the Defendants made up the instant loan certificate in the name of D, and thereafter remitted the money to E, and subsequently, the Defendants paid KRW 14 million in total and KRW 1 million in interest and KRW 2 million in total under an agreement with E.

B. In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 3 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the person who lent the instant money to the defendants is the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion premised on this cannot be accepted.

1) The instant loan certificate only states that Defendant B borrowed KRW 16 million, which appears to be the sum of the instant money and the interest thereon, from Defendant D, and that D is the Plaintiff’s agent. 2) The Defendants are the due date for the instant loan certificate.

arrow