(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.13 2017나19608

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.13 2017나19608

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. Both claims;

A. On December 25, 2004, the Defendant: (a) on December 25, 2004, entrusted the Plaintiff’s oos vehicle owned by the Defendant’s living woman to the Plaintiff’s private village C as security; and (b) borrowed KRW 15 million from the Plaintiff.

However, the vehicle later was identified as a stolen vehicle and returned to the borrower, and the defendant has concealed himself.

B. The defendant is unaware of who is the plaintiff, and there is no money borrowed from the plaintiff.

In addition, the defendant did not have any female living together at the time of December 25, 2004. Even if the plaintiff lent money to the defendant by home, the claim for the loan was extinguished by prescription.

2. As to whether the Plaintiff lent KRW 15 million to the Defendant on December 25, 2004, the fact that each of the statements in subparagraphs A and 3 is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

Rather, even in accordance with the statement of Gap evidence No. 2 (C Preparation), the plaintiff submitted as evidence, "C lent 13 million won in total to the defendant", and the plaintiff himself stated on the second day for pleading of the trial that "the plaintiff did not talk with the defendant, nor made any telephone with the defendant," and on August 23, 2017, the plaintiff made a statement to the effect that "the plaintiff believed that "the defendant borrowed money from Ecubs vehicle" and stored Ecubs vehicle with C, and later, "the plaintiff was identified as stolen vehicle and returned to the Daejeon Police Station". In such a situation, it cannot be said that there was a mutual agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to any monetary loan for consumption.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is without merit. Since the judgment of the court of first instance is unfair with different conclusions, the defendant's appeal shall be accepted and the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.18 2016나4147

-대구지방법원 2018.04.05 2017가단1858

-인천지방법원 2014.12.23 2014나11048

-제주지방법원 2016.07.14 2015나2744

-수원고등법원 2020.01.09 2019나18