(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.15 2016나16641

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 2017.06.15 2016나16641

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3 million to the bank account in the name of the Defendant on October 18, 2006 (hereinafter “the instant money”) is not disputed between the parties or recognized by the statement in the evidence No. 1.

2. The plaintiff asserts that the amount of this case is a loan to the defendant and sought the return of the loan.

In this regard, the defendant asserts that the amount of this case is not a loan but a loan, and even if the loan is a loan, the obligation to pay is extinguished by the settlement procedure (Seoul Central District Court 2015ss.523988) of a prior suit filed by the defendant against the plaintiff.

3. The Plaintiff bears the burden of proving that the instant monetary amount is a loan.

However, it is insufficient to recognize that the instant money is a loan only with the descriptions of No. 2-1 and No. 2, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, each statement in the evidence Nos. 2-1, 2, and 1-4 was established with a comprehensive view to the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, the following circumstances: (a) the Defendant sought a payment of KRW 50 million against the Plaintiff; (b) the Plaintiff was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff received a transfer of KRW 42890,000 from the Defendant from March 7, 2005 to September 28, 2007; and (c) it appears that the Defendant was more than the amount remitted to the Plaintiff before and after the date of remittance of the instant money; and (b) the prior suit was established with the content that “the Plaintiff would have received KRW 15,00,000 from the Defendant.” However, if the Plaintiff actually lent the instant money, the prior suit could have been asserted and arranged during the instant conciliation process, but the content of the instant lawsuit may have been transmitted to the Defendant after the date when the conciliation was completed.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단5732

-수원지방법원 2017.04.18 2016나67257

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.10 2014가단794

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.22 2015가합2093

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2021.03.17 2020가단1778