(영문) 대전지방법원공주지원 2019.10.17 2019가단899

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) 대전지방법원공주지원 2019.10.17 2019가단899

대여금반환

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 that: (a) transferred KRW 49.8 million to the Defendant’s account on July 11, 2014; and (b) lent it to the Defendant; (c) the Defendant is liable to repay the said loan to the Plaintiff.

2. The plaintiff's assertion that there was no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the fact that the money was received, but the loan was lent, if the defendant contestss against the defendant, the party bears the burden of proving the loan.

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972). In light of the foregoing legal doctrine, according to the evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 49.8 million to the Defendant’s account on July 11, 2014 is recognized.

However, the following circumstances acknowledged by the overall purport of statement and pleading as to No. 2, i.e., the Defendant’s assertion that Nonparty C was unaware of the fact of lending by using the Defendant’s account, and the Plaintiff stated that the instant payment order was a 30 year or longer with the Defendant, but the Plaintiff stated that he was unaware of the Defendant on the first day of pleading, and even according to the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Plaintiff merely forwarded money with the Defendant’s account number after talking about D and lending amount, interest rate, etc. (However, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant borrowed money from D) and no talk about the loan with the Defendant was divided, and the Plaintiff did not have any talk about the loan. In full view of the following circumstances, the Plaintiff appears to have not requested the Defendant to pay the loan at all for four years or ten months after the said transfer, the above remittance alone is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the loan of KRW 498 million to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to support this otherwise.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조판례

-대법원 1972. 12. 12. 선고 72다221 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.01.15 2015가단25953

-광주지방법원 2017.03.30 2015나11706

-대전지방법원천안지원 2017.08.23 2016가단113449

-울산지방법원 2019.10.02 2019가단5986

-인천지방법원 2017.09.06 2017가단8776