logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2014.10.30 2013가단235105
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 159,000,000 to Defendant B as listed in the following table, and received KRW 65,000,000 among them.

Details of remittance received at the time of October 30, 2009, 30,000,000,000 on October 15, 2009, 200,000 on November 2, 2009, 27,000,00 on November 23, 2009, 20,00 on November 23, 200, 200,000,00 on November 24, 200, 200, 200,000,000 on May 20, 200, 200, 30,00,000, 4,000,000, or 00 on December 30, 2009;

B. Defendant B owned one half of the size of G 3,016 square meters in Pakistan. However, on September 23, 2013, Defendant C, D, E, and F entered into a sales contract with Defendant C, E, and F on October 30, 2013 with respect to each of the above real estate, and completed each share transfer registration with Defendant C, D, E, and F on October 30, 2013 with respect to each of the above real estate under the receipt of the Republic of Korea's High Military Court's High Military Court's High Branch's Branch.

C. Defendant C, D, and E are co-owners of Defendant B.

Defendant F is the spouse of H, who is a private village of Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion is that the Plaintiff lent KRW 159,00,000 to Defendant B as above and received KRW 65,000,000. Thus, Defendant B is obligated to repay the remainder of the Plaintiff’s loan amounting to KRW 94,00,00.

In addition, since Defendant B’s act of selling the above real estate, which is the only property in excess of the debt, to the Defendants with a relative relationship, is fraudulent act, it is revoked, and seek the cancellation of each share transfer registration due to restitution.

B. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s argument is without merit, since it is difficult to acknowledge that the evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone lent KRW 159,00,000 to Defendant B as above, and that Defendant B is in excess of the debt, and that said real estate is the sole property, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

3. Conclusion.

arrow