logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단205083
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff, on July 8, 2009, lent a loan of KRW 50 million to the defendant at 3% per month, but the defendant did not pay interest at all. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of KRW 50 million per annum from July 8, 2009 to the date of full payment.

B. As to this, the Defendant asserts that, upon request by Nonparty D, the Defendant only prepared a loan certificate and receipt at the request of Nonparty E in the course of receiving KRW 50 million from Nonparty E, and that it does not have a relationship of monetary loan between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

2. The key issue of this case is whether the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a loan agreement for consumption as alleged by the Plaintiff in light of the aforementioned arguments by the relevant parties.

There is no dispute between the plaintiff and the defendant that the defendant signed the defendant's signature on the evidence No. 1 (the copy of the evidence No. 1).

However, in full view of the purport of the pleadings in Eul evidence No. 2 (Co. 2) and witness F’s testimony, two of the two of the two of the above loans (the copy is attached to the fourth statement) as to KRW 50 million on the same day is held by the plaintiff, and the remaining one (No. 2) is held by the defendant, while Gap evidence No. 1 is a copy of the plaintiff’s statement, stating that "the plaintiff must return to the creditor" as stated on the left side of the original copy of the loan certificate held by the plaintiff (the plaintiff submitted the copy attached to the plaintiff’s account book and the original was presented after the submission of the above copy). However, with respect to the reasons why the plaintiff submitted the copy containing some of the entries, the plaintiff presented the copy attached to the plaintiff’s account book and the original was found after the submission of the above copy).

arrow