logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2017.12.19 2016가단12616
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff lent money to the defendant under the condition that he/she lent the bill from the defendant's Sierger B to the defendant. The statement of money transactions between October 24, 2008 and September 12, 2012 between September 24, 2008 and the defendant are as shown in the attached Table.

According to this, 191,70,000 won remaining after deducting the total amount of bills borrowed from C from C from the total amount of money remitted by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is the balance of the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant. The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant a loan of KRW 191,70,000 and delay damages therefor.

2. In light of the following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of Gap evidence No. 3 and Eul evidence No. 3, the witness Eul's testimony and the purport of all pleadings, that is, the plaintiff appears to have deposited in the defendant's account to settle the amount of the bill borrowed from Eul; the plaintiff asserts that the amount deposited to others than the defendant, such as D, E, F, and G, is a loan to the defendant without any specific grounds; the total amount deposited by the plaintiff to the defendant falls short of the plaintiff's total amount of the bill borrowed from Eul; the plaintiff claims that the amount of the money deposited to the defendant falls short of the plaintiff's total amount of the bill borrowed from Eul; and the plaintiff claims that the remaining amount is a loan after adding or deducting the amount of the deposit transaction based on the details of the deposit transaction; and there is no clear assertion as to the agreed rate or the repayment period; and there is no separate loan certificate between the plaintiff and the defendant, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent KRW 1

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow