(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.08.20 2014가단37814

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) 서울서부지방법원 2015.08.20 2014가단37814

보관금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 60,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from January 1, 2013 to August 25, 2014.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the Plaintiff delivered KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant on August 1, 2012, and the Defendant agreed to return the said money after keeping it until December 31, 2012.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to return the above custody money to the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s assertion: (a) the Plaintiff and C have heard from D that they would allow them to operate the Gweweves in Yongsan-gu Seoul for three years from annual advance payment rent of KRW 2.5 billion to KRW 3 billion; and (b) the Defendant paid KRW 40 million to D as consulting expenses; (c) the Defendant had been engaged in the business of acquiring the right of operation; (d) the Defendant received KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff and C respectively from the Plaintiff and C, using the loan of KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff on July 4, 2012, and then paid KRW 80 million from the Plaintiff to D on July 4, 2012. The above KRW 80 million should be deemed to have been paid to the Plaintiff and C for the acquisition of the right of operation of the Kweves; and (e) the Defendant merely claims that the Defendant would not be liable for the loan of KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff’s intent, other than the Plaintiff’s execution of the business.

However, the Plaintiff and C agreed to pay the money to D in the name of consulting expenses in order to accept the right to operate the crowdfunding.

In light of the fact that the defendant prepared a cash custody certificate of KRW 60 million to the plaintiff as recognized by the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant should be deemed to have explicitly expressed to the plaintiff that he will assume the above 60 million won as a custodian, and the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, which is contrary to the above recognition, is not trustable, and it is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion by the defendant merely with the statement in Eul evidence No. 2 through 5, and 7, which is contrary to the above recognition.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2016.09.02 2015나5105

-수원지방법원안양지원 2013.10.25 2012가합6566

-서울고등법원 2014.10.28 2014나149

-전주지방법원 2018.10.30 2018가단8523

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.09.24 2014가단263601