logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.11.02 2018나1847
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. Basic facts (applicable for recognition: Fact that there is no dispute, evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including branch numbers for those with virtual numbers), each entry in evidence Nos. 1 and 7, and purport of the whole pleadings);

A. On June 20, 2014, the Defendant remitted KRW 20,000,00 to the Plaintiff’s account (credit union D).

B. On June 24, 2014, KRW 26,00,000 was remitted from the Plaintiff’s above credit union account to the Plaintiff’s agricultural bank account ( Nonghyup E), and on the same day, KRW 20,000,000 was remitted from the Plaintiff’s above agricultural bank account to the Defendant account (hereinafter “instant money”).

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, the plaintiff was found to have received money of the same amount from the defendant before transferring the money of this case to the defendant, and the defendant asserts that "F (the defendant's partner) established a corporation in the same business with the plaintiff, and the defendant would return the money of this case to the account known to F because it would return it after payment of a shortage of 20,000,000 won," and there is no document to recognize the loan agreement of the money of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant, and there is no document to acknowledge the loan agreement of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant (the amount of loan, the due date, and the interest rate). In light of the relationship and circumstances of the plaintiff and F, the fact that the plaintiff remitted the money of this case to the defendant is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff lent the money of this case to the defendant.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim shall be dismissed as it is reasonable.

The judgment of the first instance is unfair on the contrary of this conclusion. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is revoked and dismissed.

arrow