logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원마산지원 2015.11.13 2015가단5708
대여금등
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. On May 9, 1997, the Plaintiff, a friendship, lent KRW 40 million to the Defendant by means of directly borrowing KRW 40 million from a corporate bank and remitting it to the Han Cement at the time of concluding an agency establishment contract with Han Cement Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “ Han Cement”).

Therefore, the Defendant should pay to the Plaintiff the total of KRW 40 million and the interest paid by the Plaintiff to an enterprise bank from around that time to April 1, 2015, total of KRW 77,259,746.

B. The Defendant, at the time of working for C operated by the Plaintiff, embezzled money of KRW 3,500,000, which was collected by D Company around March 1995, and brought to the Plaintiff at will, and thus, he shall pay the said money as damages.

2. We examine the preferential loan.

According to Gap evidence No. 4, it is recognized that the plaintiff obtained a loan of KRW 40 million at the Dongsan branch of a corporate bank on May 9, 1997 and immediately withdrawn from the bank.

However, there is no objective evidence to prove that the said money was deposited into one cement account, and the witness E, who had been employed since July 1, 1995 to the plaintiff's operation, testified as being consistent with the plaintiff's argument and submitted a confirmation letter containing the same contents. However, even according to the above testimony, the plaintiff's lending of KRW 40 million to the defendant is the fact that the plaintiff knew from the plaintiff, and the testimony that directly admitted a certificate of deposit for one cement is less credibility in light of the following: the defendant's wife F's payment to the plaintiff's wife or E; the defendant's wife's 25 million won (the plaintiff's wife's KRW 10 million on January 15, 2010, KRW 10 million on December 30, 201, KRW 30 million on December 31, 2011, KRW 40 million on the plaintiff's land and the defendant's 25 million on December 5, 2013).

arrow