logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단49357
차용금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendant was employed by C in a restaurant business at the store owned by the Plaintiff and served from around 2013 to 2015.

B. From November 17, 2013 to May 2, 2015, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 21.4 million to the Defendant several times (hereinafter “instant payment”).

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent the instant payment to the Defendant.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to repay the payment of this case and its delay damages to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant asserted that the defendant was formally employed by C, but actually engaged in the restaurant business, was the plaintiff, and since the defendant was aware of the fact that he was the plaintiff's appearance, the plaintiff paid the payment in this case as additional salary or subsidy when the defendant's salary is insufficient.

Therefore, the Defendant did not have the obligation to repay the instant payment to the Plaintiff.

3. Comprehensively taking account of the following circumstances acknowledged by the evidence and evidence set forth earlier, the evidence submitted in the instant case alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the instant payment to the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim is without merit.

① Except as seen in the above basic facts, neither the Plaintiff nor the Defendant has any relationship of friendship or transaction.

② From November 17, 2013 to May 2, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the instant payment amount of KRW 21,400,000 to the Defendant for about 18 months, 40 times more than 10,000, less than 100,000 to 2,50,000 won.

3. Nevertheless, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have any objective document confirming that the instant payment, such as a loan certificate and a letter of repayment, is a loan, or setting up the due date or interest.

4. This is particular.

arrow