(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.04.26 2016나6923 | 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) 광주지방법원 2017.04.26 2016나6923

물품대금반환 등

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 parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) on March 23, 2006, the plaintiff paid 3,570,000 won to the account in the name of C designated by the defendant, and paid 3,570,000 won in cash. However, the defendant returned and again collected the price at the place of pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the pre-sale of the prepaid.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) is only the fact that the Defendant has arranged the delivery transaction between the Plaintiff and C, but did not conclude the delivery contract with the Plaintiff, which has been concluded with the Plaintiff. 2) It did not borrow money from the Plaintiff.

The amount of KRW 2 million transferred to the account in the name of D on February 5, 2008 is the amount delivered by the Plaintiff to the complainants of the fraud case against the Plaintiff and the Defendant for payment under the pretext of agreement.

2. Determination

A. According to the evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3,570,000 to the account in the name of C on March 23, 2006, but the delivery contract was concluded between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, even though it is deemed that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3,570,000 to the account in the name of C.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to prove the fact that the defendant agreed to return the price or that the defendant would return it.

B. According to the evidence No. 2, it is recognized that the Plaintiff transferred KRW 2 million to the account in the name of D on February 5, 2006, to the account in the name of D on February 5, 2006.

However, according to the evidence No. 3, the plaintiff and the defendant are as follows.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.11.25 2020나15934

-광주지방법원 2015.04.21 2015가단1043

-부산지방법원 2015.10.08 2014나18688

-수원지방법원안양지원 2015.06.11 2014가단14489

-전주지방법원 2018.01.19 2016가합1754