(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.26 2018가단10118

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) 서울북부지방법원 2019.03.26 2018가단10118

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion asserts that since the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 184 million to the defendant from around 2008 to 2014, the defendant should pay to the plaintiff the outstanding loan amount of KRW 124 million (the amount calculated by deducting the defendant's repayment of KRW 60 million from the above KRW 184 million).

2. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 10, 4, 12, and 13, a total of KRW 184 million from the bank account under the name of the plaintiff to the bank account under the name of the defendant (i.e., Sep. 16, 2008; ② KRW 9 million on Aug. 19, 2009; ③ KRW 9 million on Oct. 8, 2009; ④ KRW 3,5 million on Jul. 9, 2010; ⑤ KRW 3,5 million on Jul. 10, 2010; ② KRW 6,5 million on Jul. 10, 2010; 7.12, Jul. 12, 2010; 7.1 million on Jul. 16, 2010; 7.7.1 million on Sept. 1, 2014; 8, 2000,000 won on Oct. 16, 2014

However, the above facts and the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 3, 8, and 25 (including each number) are insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent the above money to the defendant as a housing purchase fund, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Meanwhile, the following facts and circumstances recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the statements and arguments in subparagraphs 3 through 5, and Eul Nos. 1 through 21, i.e., the defendant completed the marriage report from around 2007 to Nov. 6, 2013 while living together with Eul (the plaintiff's father), and the agreement was reached on August 25, 2016. In light of the above facts, it is difficult to presume that the above remittance was immediately lent in light of the situation that the plaintiff and the defendant were living together with the defendant and the defendant during the period of marriage and that there were many transfers between the plaintiff and the defendant in addition to the relationship with the plaintiff and the above remittances, the defendant agreed on the above remittance of money as property division between the plaintiff and the defendant.

Section B. In the name of section B.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.12.08 2016가합74609

-수원지방법원 2018.09.19 2018고단854

-청주지방법원 충주지원 2013.01.11 2012고단1047

-제주지방법원 2015.09.08 2014가단14435

-수원지방법원안산지원 2015.07.09 2014가합3518