logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.07.15 2020가단2172
대여금
Text

1. Defendant B shall pay 93,00,000 won to the Plaintiff and 12% per annum from March 8, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff, who introduced himself as the actual representative of Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”), was promised from Defendant B that the Plaintiff would pay the principal within 15 days from the date of the loan and pay 40% of the principal interest as interest on the loan of the Plaintiff, and then lent the amount of KRW 93 million to the bank account of the Defendant Co., Ltd. from September 27, 2019 to November 11, 2019. The Plaintiff, jointly and severally with the Defendant Co., Ltd., sought payment of the said loan amount of KRW 93 million and delay damages.

B. According to each of the statements in Gap evidence 1-1-4, Gap evidence 1-2-1 through 12, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff remitted the total amount of KRW 93 million to the bank account opened in the name of the defendant company over 17 times.

However, since the act of paying money to another person can be conducted through various causes, such as loan for consumption, investment, gift, etc., it cannot be readily concluded that there was an agreement between the parties to the loan for consumption solely because it was given and received money between the parties, and even if there was no dispute as to the fact that it was given and received money between the parties, when the defendant contests the plaintiff's assertion that it was given, the defendant bears the burden of proving that it was given (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2017Da37324, Jan. 24, 2018), each of the above evidence and the above facts admitted alone are insufficient to recognize that the transfer of total amount of KRW 93 million to the bank account established in the name of the defendant company as above by the plaintiff to the defendant company as lending the above amount of money, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, according to the evidence No. 449, 51, 52, 57, 60, 63, 68, 701 through 751.

arrow