logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.06.27 2016가단36323
대여금
Text

1. The claim of this case is dismissed.

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

Reasons

Basic Facts

A. On June 27, 2000, the Defendant married with the Plaintiff’s children C, but divorced on August 23, 2016.

B. Around July 2012, the Defendant concluded a child-care center underwriting contract with D, and the Plaintiff paid KRW 76 million out of the acquisition price to D to be paid by the Defendant to D to D on the date of the conclusion of the said underwriting contract.

(hereinafter the above KRW 76 million (hereinafter referred to as "the money of this case"). [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, Gap evidence 1, fact-finding reply to the new scrap metal, and the plaintiff's argument purport of the whole argument is that the plaintiff lent the money of this case to the defendant.

When borrowing the instant money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant agreed to sell the apartment house E located in the name of the Plaintiff E (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment house”) and repay it as the price.

Since the apartment of this case was sold on May 23, 2015 and the due date has arrived, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 76 million and its delay damages.

Judgment

A. According to the following facts and circumstances acknowledged by witness C’s testimony and the purport of the entire pleadings, there is no room to deem that the Plaintiff donated the instant money to the Defendant and C.

1) At around 2012, the Defendant received the instant money from the Plaintiff’s husband and wife around 2012, and around that time, the relationship between the Defendant and C was not bad. (2) A received a resignation recommendation from a company accompanying around April 2012, and the Defendant and C were to operate a childcare center as a family’s livelihood.

3) Defendant and C talked with the Plaintiff to find such circumstances, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid the instant money to D, the transferor of the childcare center. 4) Defendant and C operated the childcare center so accepted for one-time period.

5) There is no document between the Plaintiff and the Defendant regarding the lending of money, such as the certificate of borrowing. 6) C sets the accurate due date or interest rate for the instant money.

arrow