(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.08.21 2017나7071 | 리걸엔진

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) 인천지방법원 2018.08.21 2017나7071

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On September 5, 2016, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) the Defendant did not repay the said money to the Defendant by remitting the said money to the head of Tong C, which is his/her husband’s father, for one month from the date of lending; and (b) the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 5 million and the damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion only delivered KRW 5 million to D upon the plaintiff's request.

2. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 and the entire pleadings, the Plaintiff’s transfer of KRW 5 million to a passbook in the name of the Defendant’s wife C on September 5, 2016 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

However, in full view of the following circumstances, evidence Nos. 9, 10, and 10 evidence No. 1, witness D’s testimony, and the result of this court’s order to submit financial transaction information to the Nonghyup Bank, and the whole purport of the pleadings, the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff lent the instant money to C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

First, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare a loan certificate, etc. to recognize that the instant money was leased to the Defendant.

Second, the defendant asserts that he remitted 5 million won to D immediately on the same day on which he received the instant money from the plaintiff as a passbook in the name of his father C, and that the defendant only delivered the instant money to D by having the plaintiff delivered it to D, but did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

D The court stated in this Court that "the plaintiff was paid the card price and part of cash services used as the same as D with D, and the defendant was paid the money of this case through the defendant," and that "the plaintiff was not paid the money of this case directly by the plaintiff," as to the reasons why the plaintiff was not paid the money of this case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.07 2014가단101833

-인천지방법원 2014.11.07 2014나9663

-울산지방법원 2017.08.25 2016가단11898

-대구지방법원 2016.11.09 2015나305472

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.05 2017나68877