logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.12 2018나34970
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's main claim is dismissed.

3. The plaintiff added to this court.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that, around December 5, 201, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendant on a fixed basis as 3% (pre-paid interest) per annum on January 5, 201, and 90,000 won (=30,000,000 x 0.03) on the same day, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 29,10,000 to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages (i.e., the loan of KRW 30,000) to the Defendant on a predetermined basis, and that the Plaintiff was obligated to pay the Defendant a loan of KRW 30,000 and delay damages (i.e., the loan of KRW 30,000,0000) to the Defendant on a 230,000,000 and KRW 205,205.

B. The defendant's assertion that KRW 29,100,000, which was transferred from the plaintiff to the defendant's financial account on December 5, 2011, was only the money invested by the plaintiff in a third party or another person's real estate using the defendant's name. The plaintiff did not lend money to the defendant, but all of the above investment money was recovered by the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Even if there is no dispute as to the fact that there is a number of money between the parties to a judgment on the primary claim, the reason that the plaintiff received it is a loan for consumption, and the defendant is liable to prove that it was received due to the loan for consumption if it is asserted that it was received due to the loan for consumption.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972). It is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant on December 5, 201 only on the basis of the descriptions of health care units and evidence Nos. 1 through 7 with respect to the instant case, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, arguments are made in each entry of Gap evidence 1, 2, and Eul evidence 3 to 5 (including each number).

arrow