logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.05.16 2016가단36814
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant (hereinafter “D”) with C around 2012, along with the limited liability company D (hereinafter “D”).

At the time of the operation of the company, the trade name was changed to the “F” of the limited liability company E at the time.

hereinafter 'E'

2) However, in the case of the auction of real estate rent (former District Court G), the above ready-mixed factory was awarded a successful bid, but due to the non-party H’s filing of an objection by a third party, a considerable amount of money was required in the process. 2) The Defendant asked to inquire about whether there is any person who is able to lend the surrounding money to C, and C asked to contact the plaintiff who was well aware of the fact and lend money to the Defendant.

3) Accordingly, during the period from January 24, 2013 to July 23, 2015, upon introduction of the Plaintiff from C, the Plaintiff leased KRW 57 million in total to the Defendant or the person designated by the Defendant, on 19 occasions, by means of account transfer, cash transfer, or cash transfer. From June 7, 2013 to February 25, 2015, the Plaintiff lent KRW 67 million in total to the Defendant on 11 occasions by means of direct deposit or cash transfer between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff from January 24, 2013 to July 23, 2015. Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 124 million in total (= KRW 57 million in total) and delay damages.

B. Around November 15, 2016, the Defendant paid an amount equivalent to KRW 61 million to the Defendant under the pretext of the Plaintiff’s share payment and operating expenses, etc. according to the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 10% of D’s shares from the Defendant, and there was no fact that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 124 million from the Plaintiff, as alleged by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant also borrowed KRW 90 million from the purchase price of E through a certified judicial scrivener I, around November 15, 2016.

arrow