logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.04 2015가단5357768
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 54,140,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 13, 2015 to November 4, 2016.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion made a loan of USD 40,00 to July 13, 201, which is the Defendant, from August 27, 2007 to July 13, 201. Since the Defendant lent KRW 10,000 to the Defendant’s attorney fees, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a total of KRW 58,040,00 ($ 40,000 ($ 40,000) x 10,000) and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion has been managed in a considerable portion of his father C's property. The defendant's money deposited by the defendant was only transferred to the defendant the money of his father who actually managed his father's property in the process of receiving economic assistance from his father C, and there was no borrowing money from the plaintiff. The plaintiff appointed the defendant's attorney as an attorney-at-law who is well known to the plaintiff for his own interest in the process of the inheritance division lawsuit, and paid the fees. Thus, the defendant did not borrow the fees from the plaintiff.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, at the Defendant’s request, remitted USD 5,00 on August 27, 2007 to the Defendant’s husband’s account, USD 5,000 on August 30, 2007, USD 5,000 on April 14, 2008, USD 5,000 on April 28, 2008, USD 10,000 on May 6, 2009, USD 40,000 on July 13, 201.

B. On May 6, 2013, the Plaintiff filed by the Defendant, on behalf of the Defendant, paid KRW 5,000,000 for the Defendant’s attorney fees for the case involving the division of inherited property (Seoul Family Court 2012Rahap316), and on January 2, 2015, the Seoul High Court paid KRW 5,00,000 for the case involving the division of inherited property (Seoul High Court 2014B125) on behalf of the Defendant.

[Ground for Recognition: Each entry of No. 1-3-2 of evidence No. 1-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

3. Determination

A. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the above facts acknowledged, Gap evidence Nos. 4, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings, are as follows. In other words, the defendant is entitled to special benefits in the lawsuit for the division of inherited property in the Seoul Family Court 2012-Ma

arrow