logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.07.20 2016가단5140752
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant)’s obligation to pay for the goods amounting to KRW 10,191,500 against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) and KRW 50,00,000.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Basic facts

A. On July 31, 2015, the Defendant remitted KRW 50 million to the Cbank Financial Transaction Account under the name of the Plaintiff.

B. On July 17, 2015, the Defendant: (a) drafted each trading statement of KRW 7,551,550 on the trading amount of KRW 7,51,550 on July 17, 2015, and KRW 2,640,00 on the trading amount of KRW 2,60,00 on the 20th of the same month; and (b) the head of the administrative office E (F) who had worked in the foregoing trading list D puts signature

C. On May 23, 2016, the Defendant filed an application for provisional seizure of claims with the Seoul Western District Court 2016Kadan1063 with the Plaintiff as the debtor and the credit card company as the third debtor, and the said court rendered a decision citing the above application.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1 to 4, Eul evidence 1 to 4 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the defendant's counterclaim

A. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant merely lent the money to E in an individual way.

The facts that the Defendant transferred KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff’s account under the Plaintiff’s name are as examined earlier. According to the evidence examined earlier, the above amount was used as operating expenses of dental services operated by the Plaintiff.

However, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged in addition to the purport of the entire argument as seen earlier, namely, the Defendant asserted that he lent a considerable amount of money to the Plaintiff, but there was no objective document to confirm the contents of the monetary loan contract only once in the course of remitting the money, and there was no specific explanation about the interest rate, maturity, and delay damages rate, which are essential contents in the monetary loan contract, even until the pleading is closed.

arrow