(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017나72678

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.21 2017나72678

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. On April 9, 2015, the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant the sum of KRW 15 million, including KRW 5 million on April 14, 2015, KRW 5 million on April 15, 2015, and KRW 15 million on April 15, 2015 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff alleged that he lent the instant money to the defendant, and the defendant asserted that the said money was donated by the plaintiff who had been in a relationship of interest at the time.

B. The plaintiff's assertion that he lent money between the parties to the judgment even if there is no dispute as to the fact that he received money, has the burden of proof as to the fact of the lending when the defendant contestss the defendant.

(see Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018). The reason for receiving and receiving money is between both men and women having a relationship with one another, and it cannot be readily concluded that the cause of receiving and receiving money is a donation immediately. Whether the cause is a donation ought to be determined by comprehensively taking into account the details and purpose of giving and receiving money, the source, amount, and intent of return, etc.

In other words, if the amount of the delivered money does not take a large portion in the property or remuneration of the payer, and the principal has paid it in response to the request of the other party in a situation where the money is insufficient, or the other party has paid the money purely for his own personal purpose regardless of community life, and the other party has promised or agreed to repay the money received later, etc., and it can be deemed that the other party has delivered the money on the premise that the other party bears a legally binding obligation of repayment, it can be acknowledged that the lending was made even if

With respect to this case, the health department No. 2 and the statement No. 2 shall include the whole purport of the pleadings.

참조판례

-대법원 2018. 1. 24. 선고 2017다37324 판결

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2018.11.14 2018나49314

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.31 2018나82917 (1)

-수원지방법원 2020.02.06 2019나60639

-부산지방법원 2018.11.15 2017가단19216

-서울고등법원 2016.10.28 2016나2045029