(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.12.23 2019가단140545

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) 의정부지방법원 2020.12.23 2019가단140545

대여금

Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant is entitled to KRW 20,000,000 on August 30, 2017, and the same year

9. The sum total of KRW 45,000,000 was lent to the Defendant’s account by means of remitting to the Defendant’s account.

On September 18, 2018, the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of content demanding the repayment of the borrowed amount.

The defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 45,00,000 won with a reasonable period of time from October 18, 2018 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case from October 18, 2018 to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint in this case, and damages for delay calculated at 12% per annum from the next day to the full payment date.

2. The judgment of the Plaintiff amounting to KRW 20,000,000 on August 30, 2017, and the same year

9. The fact that the account was remitted of KRW 45,000,000 in total on 25,000 does not conflict between the parties.

However, the Defendant, instead of the Plaintiff’s loan to the Defendant, agreed to lend the on-site operating funds to the owner of a building (E, F, G, and H) in relation to the newly-built multi-household construction in Pakistan, and lent money to the said owner. However, the Defendant submitted as evidence a contract agreement with the content consistent with the Defendant’s assertion that the said owner transferred money to the Defendant’s account on behalf of the said owner.

According to the evidence No. 1 submitted by the Plaintiff, it appears that the Plaintiff sent to the Defendant a certificate of contents demanding the repayment of the loan on September 18, 2018, but the Defendant denied the receipt.

In addition to the above evidence Nos. 1 (Evidence of Contents), the plaintiff is unable to submit other evidence, and only the evidence No. 1 is insufficient to prove that the person who borrowed money from the plaintiff is the defendant, and there is no other evidence to prove that it is the defendant.

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

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2018.09.14 2018나1924

-서울서부지방법원 2019.07.12 2019가단210140

-부산지방법원 2017.04.12 2016가합182

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.09.18 2014가합2148

-제주지방법원 2014.12.12 2014가단4223