(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.23 2016나3833 | 리걸엔진

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) 부산지방법원 2016.11.23 2016나3833

대여금등

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 15,174,100 and its interest on August 26, 2015.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that “a business needs” was received at the Defendant’s urgent request, and lent a total of KRW 38,181,100 to the Defendant from October 1, 2009 to November 25 of the same year.

However, from December 14, 2009 to March 8, 2014, the Defendant returned total of KRW 23,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 15,181,100 (=38,181,100 - 23,000,000) and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion is that the defendant only received money from the plaintiff as a construction loan in the process of entrusting the remodeling project of the telecom with the plaintiff's recommendation. Thus, the defendant does not have any obligation to return money to the plaintiff.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the purport of the Plaintiff’s statement and the entire argument, it is recognized that the Plaintiff paid KRW 38,174,100 in total to the Defendant from October 1, 2009 to November 25, 2009 (the Plaintiff asserted that the total amount of KRW 38,181,100 is KRW 38,181,100, which appears to be an error in calculation), and that the Defendant paid KRW 23,000 in total to the Plaintiff from December 14, 2009 to March 8, 2014.

In light of the following circumstances that can be seen by comprehensively taking into account the aforementioned facts and the testimony of the witness C, namely, ① the Defendant appears to have lent the necessary money in the process of performing the remodeling project with the Plaintiff’s recommendation, ② the Plaintiff and the Defendant, as well as the receipt or confirmation document, which is a method of proving the operation of the said remodeling project or investment, and the documents accompanying the investment act, such as a contract on the terms and conditions of investment, are not prepared at all, and ③ the construction cost actually incurred by the said project was received by the Defendant directly from the owner, it is reasonable to view the Defendant’s total amount of KRW 38,174,100 as the loan amount, not the investment amount from the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.11.22 2017가합1021

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2014.01.15 2013고단2294

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.05.11 2015가단7653

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.12.12 2017가합30258

-춘천지방법원 2012.11.01 2012고단612