(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.13 2015가단51720

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.13 2015가단51720

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. Plaintiff 1) The Defendant, around November 24, 2006, deemed that the Plaintiff had operated a public entertainment bar together with the Plaintiff, and invested KRW 10 million per month. The Plaintiff lent KRW 20,833,000 to the Defendant for the acquisition of the entertainment bar and the purchase of the equipment, but the Defendant paid KRW 1 million among them.

B) As a result, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of loans and operating expenses to the Plaintiff, and the damages for delay from April 1, 2007, following the last settlement date, to March 20, 2007, when the Plaintiff directly operated the danran bar and settled operating expenses during that period, the Defendant should receive KRW 2,791,896 from the Defendant. (C) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of loans and operating expenses, and the damages for delay from April 1, 2007, following the last settlement date.

2) Although the conjunctive Defendant filed a complaint with the Plaintiff for embezzlement of earnings during the period of running a danran bar, the Plaintiff was subject to a disposition without charge. As such, the Defendant committed an offense against the Plaintiff for the purpose of evading the extinctive prescription despite the Plaintiff’s ability to repay the Plaintiff’s loan, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for tort and damages for delay. (B) The Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly run the danran bar, and accordingly, the Plaintiff invested KRW 21,23,00,000, and the Defendant invested KRW 22,742,60.

In other words, the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant is not a loan for investment.

Even if the Plaintiff extended money to the Defendant, this was a commercial claim and the five-year extinctive prescription has expired.

2 The defendant did not commit a crime without accusation, and even if the claim for damages due to a tort is recognized to the plaintiff, the extinctive prescription has also expired.

2. Determination

A. First, we examine whether the money paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in relation to the operation of the danran bar is a loan.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.10.07 2015가단4645

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.16 2016가단157502

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.23 2016나64014

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.10.25 2019가단83485

-서울서부지방법원 2016.06.23 2015나36109