(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.13 2015나6200 | 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) 수원지방법원 2015.11.13 2015나6200

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. First of all, the plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff is liable to pay the above 3,751,640 won and damages for delay to the plaintiff, on the ground that the plaintiff did not pay the tax to the plaintiff because the head of the Tong was attached because he did not pay the tax to the plaintiff and paid the tax to the defendant instead of paying the tax.

In addition, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff ordered the Defendant to pay on behalf of the Defendant the total amount of 3,751,640 won, but further there is insufficient evidence to acknowledge that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone was that the Defendant paid the said money to the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the testimony of the witness C at the trial of the party, the Plaintiff merely stated to the effect that “the Defendant would lend the passbook so that the passbook was attached because he did not pay taxes,” and does not seem to have been paid if the Defendant would directly pay taxes to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s above assertion is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant was exempted from liability for tax payment by granting the Defendant a tax amount of KRW 3,751,640 on behalf of the Defendant, and that the Defendant was obligated to return 3,751,640 as unjust enrichment and delay damages therefrom.

However, it is difficult to find that the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff alone without any legal ground that the Defendant obtained profit equivalent to KRW 3,751,640 from the Plaintiff’s property without any legal ground and thereby caused damage equivalent to the amount to the Plaintiff. Rather, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff appears to have paid the amount of tax imposed on the Defendant according to the horses of C, so the Plaintiff’s allegation is without merit.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is without merit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2021.02.10 2019가단64059

-창원지방법원 2017.06.27 2016나5331

-의정부지방법원 2015.09.04 2015나51457

-수원지방법원 2016.09.07 2015가단144880

-창원지방법원 2019.10.24 2018가단104095