(영문) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.08 2014나53340

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) 의정부지방법원 2015.01.08 2014나53340

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. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. In the Plaintiff’s assertion, around August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant at an agreement rate of 2% per month with the introduction of C on August 27, 2013, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000 as the repayment of the loan, and interest and delay damages thereon.

Preliminaryly, on August 27, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 100 million to the passbook in the name of the Defendant, and the Defendant gains profits without any cause, and the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million and delay damages to the Plaintiff, as the return of unjust enrichment.

B. In light of the following circumstances, Gap evidence No. 2-1, Eul evidence No. 2-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 1-2, evidence No. 3-1, 2, 3, and 4-1, 2, 5, 6-1, 7-1, 2, 8, 9, and 11, part of evidence No. 3-3, witness evidence No. 4 of the first instance court, witness Eul of the first instance court, witness Eul of the first instance court, and witness No. 100 million won, and witness E of the first instance court cannot be trusted, and evidence No. 2-2 of the evidence No. 2-1, 3, and 3-3 of evidence No. 2-1, and evidence No. 1, 3-1, 3-3 of witness No. 3 of the first instance court is insufficient to acknowledge the testimony of the first instance court.

Rather, the plaintiff seems to have lent KRW 100 million to E.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

(1) On August 2013, E, working as a secretary at the F Certified Judicial Scriveners Office, was asked by D, a credit service broker, of whether the remaining purchase and sale price of apartment units G 1603, Songpa-gu Seoul, would be KRW 75 million out of the total purchase price of apartment units of KRW 1603, G 1603.

(2) Accordingly, E was able to lend KRW 100 million in consideration of the value of the apartment scheduled to be the collateral.

(3) Since then, the Plaintiff had a transactional relationship with E.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2014.09.02 2014가단103831

-서울동부지방법원 2015.01.16 2014나4806

-서울남부지방법원 2016.12.09 2014가합114849

-서울고등법원 2015.10.27 2015나9273

-창원지방법원 2015.02.10 2013나14044