logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.07.14 2015나2291
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. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant borrowed five million won from the Plaintiff around September 2010, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay five million won and damages for delay to the Plaintiff.

B. The defendant's assertion is that C introduced C to the plaintiff at the time of borrowing five million won from the plaintiff, and there is no fact that C borrowed five million won from the plaintiff, and therefore, the plaintiff is not obligated to pay it to the plaintiff.

2. In light of the following circumstances, it seems that the Defendant agreed to borrow the instant loan from the Plaintiff, or to repay at least five million won to the Plaintiff, in light of the following, to know the purport of the entire pleadings on each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3.

① On September 11, 2010, the Defendant: (a) drafted a certificate of loan (Evidence A 1) stating that he/she borrowed KRW 5 million from the Plaintiff; and (b) that he/she would repay the loan by November 11, 2010; (c) it appears that the Defendant would directly borrow the instant loan from the Plaintiff, or at least be liable to the Plaintiff for the repayment of the instant loan.

② At the time of the investigation conducted by the Busan Metropolitan Police Station regarding the charge of fraud, the Plaintiff alleged that C was not a complaint filed by the Plaintiff but a complaint filed by the Defendant under the name of the Plaintiff. The Plaintiff withdrawn the complaint on the ground that there was no monetary transaction with C. If the Plaintiff borrowed the instant loan to C with the Defendant’s introduction, the Plaintiff appears to have no reason to withdraw the complaint against C.

③ The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff did not prepare the evidence Nos. 3 (a loan certificate between the Plaintiff and C) and Nos. 4 (a certificate of content as to the Plaintiff’s title C) that appears to correspond to the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, but the Defendant prepared the Plaintiff’s name at his own discretion. The above loan certificate and the above loan certificate are presented.

arrow