logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원 2018.06.01 2017나6874 (1)
대여금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the plaintiff, which orders payment below, shall be revoked.

The defendant.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 10, 2006, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant payment”) to the Defendant on January 10, 2006, the sum of KRW 15 million to the Gyeongnam Bank Account under the Defendant’s name, KRW 10 million to the account in the name of D (Account Number: E) in the name of the Defendant’s father, and KRW 30 million (hereinafter “instant payment”) on January 5, 2007, and KRW 5 million on January 17, 2007.

B. The Defendant transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 3.5 million on April 21, 2006, and KRW 3.5 million on April 23, 2007, respectively, to the Plaintiff at the Nonghyup Bank account (Account Number:F) in the name of the Plaintiff.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2 and 7 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. At the time of the payment, the Plaintiff’s respective payments of this case were set as 9% per annum on January 9, 2007 (the first payment), January 4, 2008 (the second payment), January 17, 2007 (the third payment), and January 17, 2007 (the third payment) and 9% per annum, and thus, at the time of the payment, the Defendant is obligated to pay 26.5 million won after deducting 3.5 million won from the person who was repaid to the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant 1) The instant payment is a donation made by the Plaintiff with the Defendant as a living allowance. (ii) Even if the Plaintiff leased the instant payment to the Defendant, the claim for the first payment was extinguished by prescription.

3. Determination

A. 1) Determination as to the cause of the claim 1) Although there is no dispute over the fact that the payment of this case is a loan between the parties, the plaintiff claims the cause of the loan for consumption, while the defendant asserts that it is a loan for consumption, while the plaintiff bears the responsibility to prove that it is a loan for consumption (see Supreme Court Decision 72Da221, Dec. 12, 1972, 200).

arrow