(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.06.19 2013가단11309

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) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2014.06.19 2013가단11309

대여금반환

Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 50,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from December 28, 2010 to December 26, 2013 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendants were married with each other, but around May 2012, the agreement was married with each other.

B. On December 27, 2010, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million to Defendant B at the maturity of 40% on February 30, 2011, and deposited KRW 50 million with Defendant B’s account.

C. At the time of the deposit above, D Apartment 202 Dong 410 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) was Defendant C’s name.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the above recognition as to the claim against Defendant B, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 50 million and the damages for delay at each rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 28, 2010 to December 26, 2013, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

3. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Defendant C had a substitute authority for the management of the instant apartment, and Defendant C borrowed money on behalf of the Plaintiff on behalf of the Plaintiff in order to return the deposit for the lease of the instant apartment. As such, Defendant C is obligated to return the loan to the Plaintiff.

(2) As the Plaintiff had a right to claim the loans on behalf of the Defendant C, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable to return the loans to the Plaintiff, since there was a reasonable ground to believe that Defendant B had the right to claim the loans on behalf of the Defendant C.

B. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is not acceptable, inasmuch as there is no other evidence to acknowledge that Defendant B borrowed money on behalf of the Plaintiff in order to refund the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the deposit for the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the lease of the deposit.

(2) The right of representation is a basic right of representation for daily home affairs.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2015.12.08 2015가단7329

-서울동부지방법원 2018.05.02 2017가합109722

-서울남부지방법원 2020.05.08 2019가단219674

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2015나25180

-인천지방법원 2015.11.17 2014가단254240