(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2016.01.26 2015가단6625

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) 대전지방법원서산지원 2016.01.26 2015가단6625

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the mother of the non-party deceased E (hereinafter referred to as the "the deceased"), and the defendant B is the wife of the deceased, the defendant C, and D are the children of the deceased.

B. On August 4, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 35 million to the deceased’s account at the time of his/her survival.

C. On August 25, 2014, the Deceased opened and operated a cafeteria with the trade name “F” (hereinafter “instant cafeteria”) and died on April 24, 2015. The Defendants inherited the Deceased.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On August 4, 2014, the Plaintiff, at the request of the Deceased, lent KRW 35 million to the Deceased the opening of the instant restaurant business.

The plaintiff has been working as a restaurant of the deceased, and only received 2.5 million won as wages three times, and did not operate the restaurant of this case jointly with the deceased or invested in the restaurant of this case.

Therefore, the defendants must pay the above money to the plaintiff.

B. The summary of the Defendants’ assertion is that the Plaintiff invested the Deceased and each of 35 million won in the instant restaurant and jointly operated the instant restaurant, and the money claimed by the Plaintiff is the said invested money.

Therefore, the defendants are not obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff.

C. The plaintiff asserts that, in light of the attitude and behavior that Defendant B transferred to the plaintiff after the death of the deceased, the plaintiff did not recognize the plaintiff as a partner or investor of the deceased, the plaintiff was a loan of KRW 35 million, considering that the plaintiff did not recognize the plaintiff as a partner or investor of the deceased.

However, in full view of all the evidence presented by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize that the above money is a loan and that the deceased agreed to repay it to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.18 2015가단5099000

-광주지방법원 순천지원 2018.11.29 2018가단73000

-광주지방법원 2016.06.14 2014가단524792

-인천지방법원 2019.07.17 2019가단205311

-부산지방법원 2015.09.10 2014가단100180