logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.06.28 2015나29253
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From September 9, 2005 to June 23, 2008, the Plaintiff transferred to the Defendant totaling KRW 956,43,988 (including KRW 100,00,000,000, which was remitted to C account designated by the Defendant on December 21, 2005).

B. From October 6, 2005 to July 19, 2010, the Plaintiff received a total of KRW 450,300,000 (including KRW 2500,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 from the Defendant (including KRW 2.5 billion, which was remitted from the depositor C on December 30, 2005, and KRW 7 million,00,000,00,000,000,000,000) from the depositor D and E during the period from October 12, 2006

[Grounds for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4-10, Eul 3-6, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff lent a total of KRW 956,706,638 as stated in the attached Table 1 to the defendant, and the defendant was paid a total of KRW 45,30,000 as stated in the attached Table 2, and thus, the loan unpaid is KRW 506,406,638, which is the difference (= KRW 956,706,638 - KRW 45,30,00), and therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the difference to the plaintiff.

B. The defendant, first, the defendant's assertion that the amount in the attached Form 1 of the plaintiff's assertion was donated by the plaintiff or among them, KRW 197 million was the establishment fund of the defendant's private teaching institute, and the amount of KRW 62 million was received as the sales price of the defendant's officetel, so there is no obligation to return it to the plaintiff. Second, even if it is not so, it cannot be claimed to the defendant since it was invested in the lawsuit cost of the defendant's mother G, etc.

3. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the lawsuit of this case against the Plaintiff is unlawful as it was filed against the Defendant, who is not a party standing, since the Defendant’s judgment on the previous defense of this case against the Plaintiff is G.

In the litigation for performance, the defendant standing in the litigation for performance is replaced by the plaintiff's own claim, and the judgment of the propriety of the claim is judged.

arrow