(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.11.27 2014나9871 | 리걸엔진

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.11.27 2014나9871

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

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are natives.

B. From March 2, 2000 to June 9, 2005, the Defendant purchased a studal vehicle as a driver of a driving school operated by the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff paid 4,691,425 won as the Defendant’s installment payment for the period from March 2, 2003 to June 9, 2005.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, purport of whole pleading

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment on behalf of the defendant that the defendant paid the automobile installment payment as above, and the defendant is obligated to pay the above money and the damages for delay to the plaintiff.

The fact that the Plaintiff paid the installment payment on behalf of the Defendant is as seen earlier.

However, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and all pleadings, the defendant filed a lawsuit against the plaintiff on February 14, 2005 against the plaintiff for a loan claim of 2006 Ghana1808. The plaintiff paid a total of KRW 5,632,00 per month from 204 to 16 months for the defendant's payment of KRW 352,00 per month, and the defendant's payment of KRW 5,632,00 per month was substituted by the defendant's retirement allowance. However, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff had exercised his right to this lawsuit for a considerable period of time since the payment of the defendant's installment on behalf of the plaintiff.

According to these factual relations, it is reasonable to view that the installment of automobile paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant was settled between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to substitute it as retirement allowance.

If the court did not provide the plaintiff with the payment of retirement allowance to the defendant while the lawsuit is pending, it shall clarify whether or not the defendant paid the retirement allowance to the defendant, and shall request the plaintiff to submit objective data on this. However, the plaintiff's assertion on this.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2018.03.21 2017나55258

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.23 2018가단5213760

-창원지방법원마산지원 2019.01.17 2017가단6163

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.01.25 2017고단1137

-서울동부지방법원 2020.01.10 2018나28466