logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.01.11 2016가단70542
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is the representative director of C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "C"), and the defendant served as the accounting member in D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "D").

B. On April 10, 2014, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant’s account (hereinafter “instant money”). On the same day, KRW 4,000,000 out of the said money was withdrawn in cash, and KRW 76,00,000 was transferred to the account of the representative director E at the time.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence No. 2, Eul evidence No. 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is in office as the director of D's accounting division, and he is responsible for the company's financial difficulties, and that he requested the plaintiff to lend the funds of this case, while the defendant asserted that the defendant only used the defendant's account in the course of transactions with D and C, and that he did not borrow money from the plaintiff.

B. On the other hand, as seen above, the defendant does not appear to be the major shareholder or actual owner of the above company as D's accounting staff. It is difficult for accounting staff to easily obtain a loan of 80,000,000 won or more for the company's operation in light of the empirical rule, and the plaintiff also did not prove special circumstances to lend the above amount to the defendant. The defendant's statement that the above amount was transferred immediately to D's representative director immediately, and most of the remaining amount was withdrawn from D's representative director's account and used for D's purpose is deemed to have credibility in light of the circumstances that the defendant was the managing staff of D's, and there is no loan certificate written between the plaintiff and the defendant. In light of the above circumstances, the above fact of transfer and the statement of No. 4 are alone.

arrow