logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.11.13 2015나2017690
구상금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserts that since the plaintiff lent KRW 5,00,000 to the defendant through P on April 30, 2012, the defendant is obligated to return the above KRW 5,00,000 and delay damages to the plaintiff.

As to this, the defendant did not borrow the above KRW 5,00,000 from the plaintiff, and the plaintiff merely paid KRW 5,000,000 to the defendant who requested the return of KRW 44,472,632 which was deposited in the defendant's future by using the transfer contract in the name of the defendant and demanded the return of KRW 44,472,632.

2. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 5,000,000 to the Defendant via P on April 30, 2012 does not have any dispute between the parties, but there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge the fact of lending solely with the statement of evidence No. 14, which seems consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 6, P confirmed that "P, while borrowing money from the plaintiff, the plaintiff transferred 5,000,000 won to the defendant."

In addition, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 8, 9, 10, 11-1, 2, and 15, the defendant received 44,417,758 won as a collection right holder in the distribution procedure of the Suwon District Court on January 16, 2012, and demanded the plaintiff who received it on behalf of the defendant to return it on March 31, 2012. The plaintiff received it to P, which means that the plaintiff received 10,000,000 won, and the defendant received it to the defendant on May 10, 2012, the defendant filed a criminal complaint against the plaintiff on the embezzlement, etc. of the above dividends, and around November 11, 2012, the plaintiff was found to have received 5,00,000 won out of the above dividends from the written opinion presented to the investigation agency on March 31, 200, 2005.

arrow