logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나11723
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the conjunctive claim added in the trial are all dismissed.

2. Appeal costs and ancillary costs.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 20, 2017, the Defendant prepared a certificate of borrowing that “the balance of 20,800,000 won per month shall be paid in 30,000 won” in the form of C and the Plaintiff (C).

B. The Defendant deposited KRW 300,000 on March 3, 2017, KRW 300,000,000 in the name of husband F, KRW 300,000 on April 4, 2017, KRW 300,000 on May 3, 2017, KRW 300,000 on May 29, 2017, KRW 300,00 on July 18, 2017, and KRW 1.8 million on October 2, 2017.

C. C died on October 1, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2 evidence, Gap 4 evidence, Eul 2 evidence (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff asserted that he lent KRW 40 million to C on January 8, 2007, and C lent this to the Defendant.

On January 20, 2017, the Defendant, with the knowledge of these circumstances, promised to repay the remainder to the Plaintiff KRW 20,80,000,000.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money stated in the purport of the claim to the plaintiff.

B. As alleged by the Plaintiff, we examine whether the Defendant agreed to complete payment of KRW 20.8 million to the Plaintiff.

According to the statements in Gap evidence 3 and Gap evidence 7, the defendant deposited KRW 300,000 in the passbook under the name of her husband F around August 2, 2017, and the defendant sent text messages to the plaintiff to the effect that "after the death of Eul, the defendant shall pay 300,000 won in the passbook under the name of her husband F," and that "after the death of Eul, the defendant shall

However, in light of the fact that the Defendant paid KRW 300,00 to the Plaintiff is only one time as above, and except that, the Defendant continued to pay KRW 300,000 to C, and the Defendant claims that the Plaintiff was erroneous as the inheritor of C with regard to the reason for sending text messages as above, it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement as alleged by the Plaintiff.

arrow