(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.06.16 2015나29680 (2)

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) 서울고등법원 2017.06.16 2015나29680 (2)

대여금

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the Plaintiff’s claim added at the trial room, shall be modified as follows:

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the ground of the plaintiff's claim

A. The following circumstances, i.e., evidence Nos. 1 through 3, evidence No. 5, evidence No. 14, and evidence No. 18, which can be known by the purport of each entry and whole pleading as to evidence Nos. 1 through 3, No. 1,

1. The “Account” of the Plaintiff (A) deposit statement means that: (a) H, either the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s wife, deposited each amount indicated in the “book” on the deposit date from February 3, 2012 to December 24, 2012; and (b) the Plaintiff actually operated the Defendant from May 2, 2012 to February 2013; and (c) the customer director (hereinafter “Defendant’s account director”) prepared by the Defendant through the Defendant’s audit and inspection of the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “Defendant’s account book”) without the Plaintiff’s involvement in the Defendant’s operation, if considering that each of the Defendant’s entries in the “amount of deposit” in the “amount of the Plaintiff’s and H’s account account is deemed to be a “short-term loan” (Evidence No. 5 and evidence No. 12, No. 12), it is reasonable to view that the Plaintiff directly or directly deposited the Defendant’s account of the Plaintiff’s and H’s “amount of deposit KRW 36537.5.5.”

B. On February 22, 2012, the Plaintiff, via J and K, transferred KRW 75,00,000 in total to the Defendant’s account under the Plaintiff’s name, and sought payment of the above amount as to the Defendant since it leased KRW 75,00,00 to the Defendant around the first place, and ② as to the conjunctive, the Defendant was entitled to share shares issued by the Defendant, and the Defendant was paid to the Defendant under the agreement to allocate shares issued by the Defendant, and thus, the Defendant did not distribute or could not distribute shares issued by the Defendant equivalent to the above amount to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff sought restitution of unjust enrichment equivalent to the above amount against the Defendant due to nonperformance or delay

The following shall be known in accordance with the purport of each entry into the evidence Nos. 4 to 7 and the entire pleading.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.10.16 2014나54726

-부산고등법원 2016.01.20 2014나8912

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.21 2016나55423

-대전지방법원 2021.03.25 2020구단100965

-부산지방법원 2019.05.16 2018가단20350