(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.13 2014가단102449

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.10.13 2014가단102449

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion - around September 1, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 60 million to the Defendant.

- The reason for the loan was that the Defendant requested the Plaintiff to provide that “If the Defendant was to repair the C Apartment which the Defendant had resided during the repair period, the bank will have to complete the payment with the deposit amounting to KRW 60 million upon the completion of the house repair.”

- Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won and damages for delay.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant around September 1, 2011 does not conflict between the parties, or that the Plaintiff paid KRW 60 million to the Defendant by the entry of the evidence No. 1, and around that time, there is no dispute between the parties, or may be acknowledged by the entry of the evidence No. 3 and No. 4, even if the Defendant accepted the apartment that he was living.

However, it is not sufficient to recognize the fact that the Plaintiff paid the Defendant only with the above facts of recognition, and there is no other evidence to prove it, such as the certificate of loan.

(O) According to the evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and 8, the plaintiff can be found to have been in an internal relationship with the plaintiff at the time when the plaintiff paid 60 million won to the defendant as above. According to the evidence Nos. 3 and 6, the defendant at the time, in addition to the apartment of the plaintiff's claim Nos. 3 and 6, the defendant leased an officetel located in Songpa-gu Seoul at the time and resided therein. In light of these points, even if the defendant repairs his apartment, it is not deemed necessary to borrow money from the plaintiff in order to seek a separate dwelling, but it is deemed that the defendant paid the above money without compensation to the defendant who was in an internal relationship with the plaintiff). Accordingly, the above argument by the plaintiff is rejected.

2. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.21 2014가단31738

-창원지방법원 2016.09.28 2016나52382

-서울남부지방법원 2019.10.24 2019가단204511

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.05.26 2016가단3297

-창원지방법원 2016.10.26 2016나329