(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단25175

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.05.11 2017가단25175

기타(금전)

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2007, the Plaintiff borrowed 20,000,00,000 won from the Defendant, from the Defendant, the Defendant, who operates the pawnban in the name of “C”, by offering as security two Dmonds (1.2Ct 18K Jmonds No. 14K Lmonds No. 18K No. 1.0ct 14K Lmonds No. 14K No. 1.0ct (hereinafter the “instant collateral”), two hundred thousand won from the Defendant.

B. The Plaintiff was detained in a criminal case after the Plaintiff received the instant collateral return from D, and the Defendant returned the instant collateral to D on May 8, 2010 after receiving all the principal and interest of the said loan, and received a written confirmation of acceptance from D (hereinafter “written confirmation of acceptance”) from D at the time. At the time of the said return, the written confirmation of acceptance was verified that D was a multimon-mond dead material for two of the instant security at the time of the said return, and that it was confirmed that D was a multimond dead material, and that the weight of gold with respect to gold metal.

C. On July 29, 2013, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant for the suspicion that the Defendant embezzled two of the instant security in the amount as to embezzlement by changing two of the multimonds into a fake. However, the Defendant received a decision of non-prosecution on July 29, 2013, and the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant again for the suspicion of occupational embezzlement around 2017, on the ground that the Plaintiff was an inventory of the same issue on October 31, 2017.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 5, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff deposited multimonds to the Defendant, which are the advanced goods, and the Bans returned by the Defendant are different from the goods deposited by the Plaintiff, so the Defendant is based on the deposit contract with the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.01.07 2013고단5535

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.25 2016가합534083

-서울고등법원 2018.11.9. 선고 2017누90201 판결

-창원지방법원통영지원 2020.09.22 2019가단3294

-서울북부지방법원 2018.10.11 2018나1436