logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2015.06.04 2014가단42661
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and its related amount are 5% per annum from July 12, 2014 to June 4, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The fact that the plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the defendant on August 20, 2008 is not a dispute between the parties.

B. According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages therefor. 2) The plaintiff additionally lent KRW 20,000 to the defendant around August 2008, and agreed to receive interest of KRW 20,00,000 from the defendant at the time of the above lending. However, although the plaintiff submitted and invoked evidence alone is insufficient to prove each of the above arguments of the plaintiff, each of the above arguments by the plaintiff is without merit.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The fact that the Defendant paid totaling KRW 17,00,000 to the Plaintiff over 12 times, as indicated in the attached Form “the details deposited by the Defendant to the Plaintiff” from June 29, 2011 to May 23, 2014, does not conflict between the parties.

B. The defendant asserts that he paid KRW 17,000,000 to the plaintiff and repaid the above loan debt. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserts that the above amount was paid to the defendant regardless of the above loan debt.

C. According to Gap evidence Nos. 3, 4, 7 and Gap evidence Nos. 6-1, the plaintiff was very closely related to the defendant, and it is recognized that the plaintiff paid 10,000,000 won or more to the defendant in 2008, and the defendant also paid 17,000,000 won to the plaintiff who was economically difficult. In full view of the circumstances that the defendant paid 17,00,000 won to the plaintiff who was economically difficult, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the defendant paid 17,00,000 won to the plaintiff was related to the above loan obligation. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the Defendant’s loan of KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff and the following day after the delivery of the instant payment order to the Plaintiff.

arrow