logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.23 2015나38832
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. In light of the following facts: (a) there is no dispute between the parties to the facts of recognition; or (b) when comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 and evidence No. 1, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50,000,000 on two occasions over two occasions to a new bank account under the name of the Defendant-designated C, and the sum of KRW 10,000,000,000,000, on April 26, 2006.

2. The allegations and judgment of the parties

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) Around April 2006, the defendant requested that the plaintiff pay 50,000,000 won with interest of 50,000 won per annum and one year thereafter. The plaintiff extended 50,000,000 won to the defendant by account transfer over two occasions. Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay 50,000,000 won with interest and delay damages for the loan.

In other words, the Defendant received 50,000,000 won from D as a result of the Plaintiff’s request for investment, and the Defendant deposited KRW 100,000,000,000 in a stock investment account under the name of C, which was the sum of KRW 50,000,000 borrowed from D, but only incurred losses due to the breadth of stock price, the amount of KRW 15,907,667 remains.

Therefore, with respect to KRW 15,907,667 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, each share ratio should be settled, and the Defendant does not have the obligation to pay KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff.

B. The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively taking account of each of the above facts admitted as 1, Gap evidence Nos. 2, 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 7, and the overall purport of the pleadings, namely, ① the plaintiff and the defendant have a pro-friendly relationship known with a prior school career, and did not separately prepare documents, such as a loan certificate, in addition to the details of financial transactions, and such objective documents have not been prepared.

arrow