logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.08.24 2018나201987
대여금
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. On August 3, 2007, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10,000,00 to the Defendant on a 45-day grace period.

Since the defendant did not pay this, it is claimed that the defendant pay 10,000,000 won and damages for delay.

B. 10,00,000 won, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant on August 3, 2007, was paid as the price for the ready-mixed products buried in the Plaintiff’s father’s grave, not the Defendant borrowed this.

2. Determination

A. Where a transfer is made by transferring money to another person’s deposit account, etc., the remittance may be made based on various legal causes, and even if there is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that money was received, when the defendant contests the plaintiff’s assertion that the lending was made, the party bears the burden of proof on the plaintiff who asserts that the lending was made.

(See Supreme Court Decisions 72Da221 Decided December 12, 1972; 2014Da26187 Decided July 10, 2014, etc. (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 72Da26187, Dec. 12, 1972

According to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted KRW 10,00,000 to the defendant's account on August 3, 2007, and that the plaintiff sent text messages to the defendant for the return of KRW 10,000,000 on several occasions from December 14, 2015 to February 4, 2016.

① However, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not prepare any disposal document to prove the lending of KRW 10,00,00, including the receipt of loan for the said KRW 10,000, and ② the Plaintiff sent the above text message to the Defendant several times from December 14, 2015 to February 4, 2016, but the Defendant appears not to have responded to the above text message, and the fact of lending cannot be recognized only by the message sent by the Plaintiff. ③ The Plaintiff’s payment period was eight years after the lapse of eight years from September 18, 2007 (45 days after August 3, 2007).

arrow