logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2015.12.03 2015가합554
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff and the defendant are legally married couple who completed the marriage report on March 6, 2002.

B. On February 1, 2008, the Defendant registered an entrepreneur with the trade name D and operated credit business with the Plaintiff from that time.

C. On November 29, 2013, the Defendant: (a) was placed in an unidentified state due to the depression of credit; and (b) around November 29, 2014, the Plaintiff filed a petition with this court for adjudication on the commencement of adult guardianship with the Defendant as the principal of the case.

On November 21, 2014, the defendant was tried to commence adult guardianship by this Court (2014Jin-Ma216), and as the defendant's adult guardian, C was appointed as a supervisor of adult guardianship.

The above adjudication was finalized on January 7, 2015. D.

Meanwhile, on April 18, 2006, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 5,500,000 to the passbook in the name of the Defendant, KRW 65,000,000 on August 20, 2008, and KRW 6,000 on October 14, 2009, and KRW 39,90,000 on October 26, 2009, respectively.

[Ground for recognition] Unsatisfy

2. The plaintiff's assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent KRW 5,500,000 to the defendant on April 18, 2006, and lent KRW 65,000,000 to the defendant on August 20, 2008, and KRW 6,000,000 on October 14, 2009, and KRW 39,00,000 on October 26, 2009 respectively for the above credit business, the defendant is obligated to return the above loan amount to the plaintiff as KRW 116,40,00.

B. Where a person transfers money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on a variety of legal causes. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the money transferred to the Defendant is a loan under a monetary loan contract (see Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972; 72Da26187, Jul. 10, 2014); and most of the money transferred by the Plaintiff to the passbook under the name of the Defendant (10,90,000) was used for credit business. The Plaintiff himself/herself recognized that the money transferred to the Defendant’s account (110,90,000) was used for the credit business; the Defendant, while engaging in the credit business with the Defendant, made a real estate answer E.

arrow