(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.09.23 2019나5925 | 리걸엔진

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) 인천지방법원 2020.09.23 2019나5925

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On June 16, 2017, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant asserts that the said loan should be repaid to the Plaintiff.

B. In regard to this, the Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff lent the above money to the head of the C Station of the C Station Extension Corporation that provided labor at the time, and that the Defendant deposited the loan for convenience at the construction site to the Defendant who was responsible for the payment of expenses, and that there was no lending of money from the Plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent money to the parties even if there was no dispute as to the fact that the money was given and received between the parties, has the burden of proof as to the fact of lending to the Plaintiff.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972; 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da26187, Dec. 12, 1972

According to the above legal principles, according to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff was found to have remitted KRW 3,00,000 to the defendant's account on June 16, 2017. However, according to the evidence No. 1, the plaintiff filed a criminal complaint against the defendant due to fraud according to the statement No. 1, but the prosecutor found that the plaintiff was suspected of having borrowed 3,00,000 won deposited to the defendant's account. Thus, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff's remittance amount was a loan to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be dismissed as it is without merit.

The judgment of the first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit.

참조판례

-대법원 1972. 12. 12. 선고 72다221 판결

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나53214

-의정부지방법원 2017.04.26 2016나12619

-인천지방법원 2020.08.12 2019나68056

-의정부지방법원 2019.12.18 2018가단12476

-제주지방법원 2019.02.18 2018가단56598