logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나65705
대여금
Text

The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

Expenses for appeal shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Purport of claim and appeal

The judgment of the first instance.

Reasons

1. On April 13, 201, the Plaintiff’s father C loaned a total of KRW 32,250,000 from around April 13, 201 to September 28, 201, and received KRW 9,00,000 out of the above loans. C died on May 15, 2015, and the Plaintiff succeeded to the above loan claims through an agreement on the division of inherited property.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining loan 23,250,000 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, in a case where the content of performance, such as a monetary claim, is jointly inherited, the claim amounting to KRW 11,625,00,00, out of the remaining loan 23,250,000 claimed by the Plaintiff and other co-inheritors, shall be dismissed, as a matter of principle, since the claim amounting to KRW 11,625,00,00, is naturally divided and reverted to co-inheritors according to the statutory share of inheritance at the same time

B. In a lawsuit for performance, the standing to be a party lies in a person who asserts that he/she has the right to demand performance, which is a subject matter of lawsuit, and whether the right to demand performance exists or not shall be proved through the deliberation of the merits (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2003Da44387, 44394, Oct. 7, 2005). Thus, the Defendant’s defense as above is merely an assertion on the existence of the right to demand performance, which is the subject matter of lawsuit, and thus, it is difficult

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that there was no dispute between the parties as to the fact that there was a receipt of money but the loan was lent is proved by the burden of proof on the Plaintiff who asserted that the loan was lent.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2013Da73179 Decided September 15, 2015, etc.). B.

C The fact of transferring a sum of KRW 32,250,00 to the Defendant from April 13, 201 to September 28, 2011 is between the parties.

arrow