(영문) 전주지방법원 2017.11.29 2017나5559 | 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) 전주지방법원 2017.11.29 2017나5559

손해배상(기)

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendants and the defendant B's appeal are all dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's appeal costs.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance concerning this case is as follows: 7th 11th e.g., the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: ① The plaintiff asserts that the defendants had made the name of the store in this case to the plaintiff, but the evidence related thereto appears to be nonexistent in the plaintiff's statement. However, at the time of the plaintiff being investigated as a witness by an investigative agency, the plaintiff had occupied the store in the name of the plaintiff in this case to the low (the plaintiff) with the right to operate the store in this case, but the plaintiff could not enjoy the right as the operator at the time of actual operation (the second statement of statement of statement of statement of statement of statement No. 7-2 of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this case of this court of first instance, it is difficult to believe this case of this.

"However, even if it is recognized that there is a delivery of money between the parties, if there is a dispute as to the fact that the cause for the payment of money is the lending, that fact shall be proved to the plaintiff (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972), and as mentioned above, or in full view of the following facts and circumstances, which can be recognized by the purport of the entries and arguments in subparagraphs 1 through 5, 1, 2, and 34.7 million won (= KRW 6.5 million) in the above manner, it is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the money to the defendant B, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

1. The money in this part is Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 1972. 12. 12. 선고 72다221 판결

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.01.19 2016가합1754

-인천지방법원 2020.12.18 2020나53463

-의정부지방법원 2018.01.24 2017나7546

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.02.08 2017가단23720

-대구지방법원 2018.12.12 2018나313061