logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.10.06 2015가합6815
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. In around 2007, the Plaintiff came to know of the Defendant through the introduction of the land-based C, and later developed with a tobacco. At the Defendant’s request that a loan is made for the purchase of a house, the Plaintiff lent the Defendant the money of KRW 50,000 (cash and cashier’s checks) on April 3, 2007, KRW 29,000 (cash) on June 12, 2007, KRW 22,000,000 (cash) on June 17, 2007, KRW 3,430,000 on November 11, 2007, KRW 10,000 on November 10, 2007, KRW 204,430,000 (cash) on November 13, 2007 (hereinafter “instant money”).

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant came to be hedging around June 2009, and the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return the money that had been lent to the Defendant, but the Defendant refused to return the said money and cut off the contact with the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money of this case and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. The judgment is based on the following facts: (a) The plaintiff asserts that he/she loaned money to the defendant and then recorded the facts in his/her multilateral interest rate; (b) although he/she submitted the evidence Nos. 1 (Dalish copy), it was unilaterally made by the plaintiff and it is difficult to believe the contents thereof as it is; (c) although the content of the evidence No. 3 (Fact Certificate) corresponds to the plaintiff's above assertion, the contents of the evidence No. 3 (Fact Certificate) correspond to the plaintiff's assertion, it is difficult to view that the above fact certificate has the value of evidence independently from the plaintiff's assertion, and (c) even though the amount the plaintiff claimed to the defendant reaches a large amount of 204,430,000 won, it cannot be found that there was no evidence preparation such as a loan certificate or loan contract for consumption (the plaintiff asserted that he/she lent money in cash as seen earlier, but it is difficult to obtain a preferential payment).

arrow