logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2017.09.21 2016가단13305
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. On December 5, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendants by means of remitting money to the account under Defendant B’s name.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000 and interest or delay damages thereon.

B. The conjunctive Defendants alleged that they borrowed the above KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff and explained that “to promote the fertilizer business with the money,” and “to immediately repay the loan of the start-up fund,” and all of the aforementioned explanation are false.

Therefore, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay 200 million won and damages for delay due to tort to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statements Nos. 1 and 2, the Plaintiff withdrawn 200 million won in total from the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name on December 5, 2013, and the Defendants received or used the said money respectively.

B. However, in light of the following circumstances, the aforementioned facts and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone are insufficient to recognize “the fact that the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendants,” and “the Defendant committed a tort, such as receiving KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff by making a false statement to the Plaintiff,” and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① With respect to KRW 200 million claimed by the Plaintiff as a loan, documents, such as the loan certificate and the letter of payment, were not prepared between the Plaintiff and the Defendants as a debtor.

② The Defendants asserted that the Plaintiff’s nature of KRW 200 million is “the money invested by the Plaintiff in D,” and there was discussions between the Plaintiff and the Defendants on the promotion and establishment of fertilizer business or corporation D at the time of the payment of the said money, considering the allegations and evidence presented by the Plaintiff.

arrow