logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2016.02.19 2015가합966
대여금
Text

1. As to KRW 243,220,00 and KRW 40,200,00 among the Plaintiff, Defendant B shall be from January 1, 2015 to December 24, 2015.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On December 31, 2014, the claim amounting to KRW 40,200,000 was determined and lent to Defendant B as of December 31, 2014, and KRW 203,020,000 did not specify the due date, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of the above loan amounts to KRW 243,220,000 and interest or delay damages thereon.

(b) Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act of the applicable provisions of Acts;

2. As to the claim against Defendant C, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 20,000,000,000 to Defendant C at the request of Defendant B, who is the State of lending KRW 20,000 to Defendant C, and that on August 28, 2013, the Defendant C is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 20,000,000 and the delay damages.

According to the statement No. 3, and the result of this court’s order to submit financial information to the No. 3 NH Bank, the plaintiff can be found to have remitted KRW 20,000 to Defendant C’s Nonghyup Bank account on August 28, 2013.

However, a monetary loan contract is established only when one of the parties agrees to transfer money to the other party and the other party agrees to return such money (Article 598 of the Civil Act). Since the mere fact that he remitted money to the other party cannot be seen as immediately concluding a monetary loan contract, it is insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff wired money to the Defendant C solely with the fact that the Plaintiff was concluding a monetary loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant C, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion of the above claim against the defendant C is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the claim against the defendant C is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow