logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.09.27 2016가단17484
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On January 24, 2005, 200, KRW 150,000 due date for repayment was set as January 24, 2006, and interest rate was KRW 9.2% per annum ( KRW 1,150,000 per annum) by the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s de facto marital spouse as joint borrowers.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 38,000,000 won and damages for delay, which the plaintiff seeks, among the above loans.

2. We examine whether C by proxy of the plaintiff lent KRW 150,000 to the defendant on January 24, 2005.

The statements in Gap evidence 7 and witness evidence D, which correspond to the above facts, are all the statements in D, and it is difficult to believe them in light of the following points.

① The instant loan was lent on the basis of human relations between C and D (the former workplace and its subordinate staff) and D had not been repaid until now.

D) At the appellate court (Seoul Northern District Court 2015Kadan5436) of the previous suit (Seoul Northern District Court 2015Kadan5436) filed by C against itself and the Defendant, the said appellate court rejected the credibility of D’s testimony by admitting the facts, etc. of cooperation in the progress of the lawsuit, such as the fact that D was presented as evidence in the absence of the Defendant’s consent or approval, and the fact that D was presented as evidence for the proceedings without obtaining the Defendant’s consent or approval.

(2) The appraisal by D and the defendant in a de facto marital relationship is not good.

In addition, there is no other evidence to prove the facts produced by the defendant (the plaintiff is the person who prepared and delivered the above loan certificate, and D's testimony to the effect that the defendant was present at the defendant's name when preparing the loan certificate, and that the witness D's testimony was affixed directly to the defendant's seal to the defendant's name, cannot be used as evidence, and it cannot be used as evidence under the name of the plaintiff.

arrow