(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.06.19 2014가합8388

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.06.19 2014가합8388

대여금 등

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Judgment as to the main claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion is a total of KRW 220,000,000 (hereinafter “instant money”) to the Defendant by means of remitting money to the Defendant or C from September 201 to December 201.

(2) The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 220,00,000 and damages for delay thereof. In addition, the Plaintiff served in the “D Public Notice Board” operated by the Defendant from May 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014, and the Plaintiff was not paid KRW 46,50,000 out of the wages from May 1, 2012 to June 30, 2014. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff wages of KRW 46,50,000 and damages for delay thereof. (2) The Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to make a joint investment in the Geumcheon-gu Seoul Building that was executed by the Defendant on December 29, 2011.

(2) The Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant or C in order to perform the remaining investment obligations. The Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant or C in accordance with the instant investment agreement. The Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant or C by converting the loans to the Defendant up to that time pursuant to the instant investment agreement.

Therefore, the defendant is not obligated to return the money of this case to the plaintiff.

In addition, since the defendant did not employ the plaintiff, he does not have any obligation to pay wages to the plaintiff.

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff’s loan claim was transferred to the Defendant or C from September 8, 201 to December 30, 201 of the same year, and the facts constituting KRW 220,000,000 do not dispute the parties, and as evidence suggesting that the instant money is a loan to the Defendant, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 4 (including each number, if any, if any; hereinafter the same shall apply) is admitted as consistent with the Plaintiff’s assertion that it is a loan to the Defendant.

include each such entry.

However, each of the above evidence reveals that Gap 2, 3, 5 evidence, Eul 1 to 4, and 7 evidence, Eul's testimony and the whole purport of pleading.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.11.21 2018나42955

-수원지방법원 2016.11.04 2016가단13648

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.10.30 2020가단9384

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.24 2016가단5994

-인천지방법원 2021.02.03 2020가단233091