(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.07.12 2016가단50241

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) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.07.12 2016가단50241

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments in each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 and 2-1 and 2-2, the fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 56,270,500 to the Defendant, including the sum of KRW 11,270,500 on November 8, 201, KRW 16,000 on November 16, 201, KRW 5,000 on December 2, 2011, KRW 20,000 on December 15, 201, KRW 20,000 on December 15, 201, and KRW 10,000 on December 26, 201, KRW 56,270,500 on December 26, 201.

2. The gist of the parties’ assertion is the cause of the instant claim that the Plaintiff lent KRW 56,270,50 to the Defendant as above. As such, the Defendant did not borrow from the Plaintiff that it received an investment from the Plaintiff in seeking payment of KRW 48,359,500.

3. Determination

A. The monetary loan agreement is a shot, paid or without compensation, or influenite contract, which is established when one of the parties agrees to transfer the money to the other party, and the other party agrees to return the money in cash. Since the defendant denies the loan agreement against the Plaintiff, the burden of proving that the loan agreement was made exists is against the Plaintiff who asserts that the loan agreement was made.

B. In light of the aforementioned evidence, if the Defendant: (a) was aware of the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the total of KRW 12,60,000 to the Plaintiff ten times from February 14, 2012 to February 5, 2014; and (b) provided a loan to the Plaintiff at the interest rate of 10% per annum as alleged by the Plaintiff, it is insufficient to recognize the fact that the Defendant provided a loan to the Defendant only by the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff in light of the fact that the monthly amount repaid exceeds the interest amount compared to the leased amount, and the principal amount decreases; and (c) there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.09.04 2019가단15313

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.11.07 2017가단116885

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.04.26 2014가단203041

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.05.22 2018가단116561

-춘천지방법원 2015.12.15 2015가단4040