logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
부산지방법원 2018.01.19 2017나50799
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with C, the Defendant’s mother from around 2002 to around 2015.

B. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 10 million to the Nonghyup Bank Account (Account Number D) in the Defendant’s name (hereinafter “instant money”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. On April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant, and the Defendant has to pay the Plaintiff the instant money. (2) The Defendant asked the Plaintiff to lend KRW 10 million to C, his mother, who is the Plaintiff, for the repayment of his bank loans. Since C loaned KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff transferred the instant money to C, the obligor as to the instant money is not the Defendant, but C, even if the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant, even if the Defendant lent the instant money to the Defendant, the Defendant lent KRW 15 million in total to the Plaintiff from October 27, 2008 to October 15, 2009. Accordingly, the Defendant’s lending KRW 15 million out of the said loan claims against the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff to offset the Plaintiff’s loan claims against the Defendant.

B. It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to the Defendant solely on the basis of the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, the following circumstances, which may be revealed in the above basic facts by the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 1 through 4 and the entire pleadings, have been revealed, namely, ① the plaintiff was in de facto marital relationship with C from around 2002 to around 2015, as well as multiple monetary transactions while maintaining a trade relationship with C in relation to the US and other fishing grounds, while the plaintiff and the defendant did not have any special relationship with the plaintiff and they did not receive any money.