(영문) 전주지방법원 2018.08.17 2017나14423

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 2018.08.17 2017나14423

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal against the defendant is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are assessed against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The assertion and judgment

A. The summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is as follows: (a) the Defendant borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff along with C; and (b) the Defendant is jointly and severally obligated with C to pay KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff.

Even if the defendant is not the borrower of the above money, the defendant is involved in the act of defraudation of money by lending the head of the post office in his name to C, and the defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to pay 30 million won to the plaintiff as joint tortfeasor.

B. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading as to Gap evidence No. 1, the plaintiff transferred the sum of KRW 30 million to the post office account in the name of the defendant designated by C upon receipt of a request for lending money from C on June 2, 2017 (hereinafter "the money in this case"). On June 12, 2017, Eul transferred KRW 1 million to the savings account in the name of the plaintiff using the agricultural bank account in the name of the defendant on June 12, 2017 through the agricultural bank account in the name of the defendant, although it is recognized, it is insufficient to recognize that the defendant borrowed the money in this case from the plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

In addition, according to the overall purport of the statement and arguments as to Gap evidence No. 4, although it is recognized that the defendant allowed Eul, who is the branch of the defendant, to use his post office passbook under his name, it cannot be deemed that the defendant merely allowed Eul to use his own name, but it cannot be deemed that Eul committed any illegal act against the plaintiff. The evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone acquired the plaintiff's money.

It is not sufficient to recognize that the defendant participated in C’s pecuniary advantage, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

2. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant must be dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.10.28 2016나2943

-의정부지방법원 2015.10.15 2015나5164

-수원지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나70318

-부산지방법원 2020.12.08 2020가단3938

-서울서부지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단17886