(영문) 서울고등법원 2016.12.02 2016나7397 | 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) 서울고등법원 2016.12.02 2016나7397

차용금 및 투자금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, and the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is identical to that of the judgment of the court of first instance except for additional determination.

(2) Of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, the corresponding part shall be deemed as follows from the 4th to the 18th 17th 'the same day' among the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance (hereinafter the same shall apply).

The Plaintiff, who became aware of these circumstances, allowed the Defendant to open a deposit account in the name of the Plaintiff on 1.B. of the first instance judgment 1.B., and deposited KRW 100 million to the said Agricultural Cooperative Account (T; hereinafter “instant account”) opened in the name of the Plaintiff by visiting the said Nonghyup.

2. The plaintiff for additional determination is based on the grounds of the judgment of the first instance.

The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows: (a) KRW 150 million out of the total sum of KRW 150 million 150,000,000,000,000,000,000 won 1,3, and 4 of the statement in the statement in this case (hereinafter “the statement in this case”).

As described in paragraph (1), the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is liable to pay KRW 82,836,00 and damages for delay.

However, there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the Plaintiff contributed KRW 100 million to the deposited money deposited on July 19, 2013, solely on the basis of the evidence Nos. 3-1 through 3, Gap evidence Nos. 4, and 5.

In addition, even if the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30,00,00 on July 23, 2013, including D deposit 49,980,00,00 as of July 23, 2013, the account details Nos. 3 and 4, and KRW 30,000,00 of the deposit money deposited in the instant account, as alleged by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff deposited part of the Samsung Fire Insurance Termination Refund, which is the receipt money received on the same date as its wife D, into the instant account, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged in light of the aforementioned evidence and facts, it is difficult to view that the Defendant is liable to the Plaintiff for the repayment of KRW 82,8

① The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2018.08.22 2018가단100380

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2021.03.03 2020가합377

-서울남부지방법원 2015.01.29 2013가합15433

-수원고등법원 2020.10.15 2020나11380

-창원지방법원 2020.12.24 2019나60711