logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.01.29 2015나13581
대여금
Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the defendant lent to the defendant a total of KRW 30 million on January 7, 2004 and KRW 150 million on July 2, 2007, and KRW 20 million on November 16, 2004. However, the defendant asserts that the defendant is liable to pay the plaintiff a total of KRW 30 million on June 14, 2004, KRW 10 million on June 16, 2005, KRW 50 million on June 16, 2005, KRW 50 million on September 30, 2005, KRW 560,000 on September 26, 2006, KRW 150,000 on July 2, 2007, KRW 1794,00 on September 3, 207, KRW 200 on the remainder of the loan, KRW 167,970,00 on September 3, 207.

As to this, the defendant is required to operate the defendant at the time of 2004 by the plaintiff

Money was given to C, D, etc. to be worked at the main point, but they need to do so.

Since it was difficult for the Defendant to visit the bank from the main point to the late and low night, the Defendant merely deposited money with the Plaintiff’s passbook on behalf of the Plaintiff, and the Defendant did not directly borrow money from the Plaintiff.

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment below, Gap evidence 1-1-4, the defendant deposited the plaintiff's bank account of June 14, 2004, KRW 17.9 million on June 16, 2005, KRW 5 million on September 30, 2005, KRW 500,000 on September 50, 2006, KRW 560,000 on September 26, 2006, KRW 150,000 on July 2, 2007, and KRW 380,000 on September 3, 2007.

However, the above facts alone are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant on January 7, 2004, and KRW 20 million on November 16, 2004, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal is accepted, and the judgment of the court of first instance is revoked and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as per Disposition.

arrow