logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.08.18 2019가단574076
대여금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Around September 2006, the Plaintiff’s purport of the Plaintiff’s assertion was to keep KRW 200 million out of the sales price at the end of September 2006, in order to maintain the eligibility of a basic livelihood recipient after selling the building in Suwon-si, Suwon-si C, 149 square meters and its ground (hereinafter “instant real property”) to KRW 270 million.

Since the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to return the above KRW 200 million on May 201, and the relationship of custody between the Plaintiff and the Defendant terminated, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above KRW 200 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff.

2. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 5 as a whole, the plaintiff and the defendant are the wholesalers. According to the certificate of recipient of livelihood benefits, medical benefits, and housing benefits issued by the plaintiff as of December 24, 2019, the plaintiff sold the real estate of this case owned by this case to D on September 4, 2006 and transferred its ownership on September 22, 2006; the defendant purchased from F, on April 17, 2007, the land of this case was purchased from Suwon-si E-Gu, Suwon-si, Suwon-si, and buildings on its ground and transferred its ownership on April 27, 2007; the plaintiff acquired ownership on August 20, 2007; the plaintiff revoked the provisional registration of right to claim ownership transfer on August 20, 207 (the reason for cancellation of the registration on August 26, 2007).

However, the above facts and other evidence presented by the plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff stored KRW 200 million out of the sales price of the real estate of this case to the defendant around September 2006, and there is no other evidence to deem otherwise.

The plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow