logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.11.22 2018가단1486
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 62,440,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from July 7, 2018 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Indication of claims: To describe the cause of claims and the changed cause of claims in attached Form; and

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. Part concerning partial dismissal

A. Of the part claimed by the Plaintiff that the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant, the part that the Plaintiff transferred to the Nonparty’s account in the name of Nonparty C is difficult to recognize that the Plaintiff lent the money to the Defendant only with the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (the Defendant appears to have asserted that the actual borrower of the said money transferred to Nonparty C’s account on February 11, 2008, KRW 1 million on March 17, 2008, KRW 20 million on March 31, 2008, KRW 20 million on March 31, 2008, KRW 10 million on April 8, 2008, KRW 50 million on April 15, 2008, KRW 41 million on the sole basis of the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff (the Defendant appears to have asserted that the actual borrower of the said money transferred to Nonparty C’s account, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this). This part of the Plaintiff’s claim is rejected.

B. The Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 103,440,000 to the Defendant’s original claim principal. On October 4, 2018, the Plaintiff sought payment of KRW 23,440,000,000 for the total of the claimed principal by expanding the claim amount to KRW 20,000,000 to the Defendant as the actual borrower, who was transferred to the account under the name of Nonparty C, the Defendant’s birth, on March 31, 2008.

However, the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize the fact that the actual borrower is the defendant (the portion of the Plaintiff’s original claim also includes KRW 20 million, which was remitted to the account in the name of C on March 31, 2008, and it appears to be a duplicate claim), and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, this part of the claim is rejected.

arrow