(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.09.17 2015가단10908

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) 창원지방법원 2015.09.17 2015가단10908

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's argument that the plaintiff lent 42 million won to the defendant who stated that he would be able to lend money to the studio business. The plaintiff agreed to immediately repay 42 million won to the plaintiff, so the defendant is obligated to pay 42 million won to the plaintiff.

2. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the defendant on October 14, 2014, and KRW 10 million on December 22, 2014. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff paid KRW 2 million to the defendant on November 11, 2014, but the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 alone is insufficient to recognize it and there is no other evidence to prove it otherwise. 2) Furthermore, although the plaintiff asserts that the amount paid to the defendant as above is the name of loan, it is difficult to prove that the plaintiff paid the above money under the name of loan to the defendant, or in full view of all the evidence and arguments presented by the plaintiff, taking into account the following circumstances:

(1) A person claiming a loan shall prove that there has been an agreement to return the money, and the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff agreed to return the money to the defendant at the time when the plaintiff paid the money to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

② After paying the above money to the Defendant, the Plaintiff entered the Defendant’s residence and started living together.

The Plaintiff asserted that, around that time, a fire occurred in his own residence and that he was living together in the Defendant’s residence. However, it is difficult to view that the Defendant’s living together with the Plaintiff on the sole basis of the occurrence of a fire in the Plaintiff’s residence is a sufficient reason for the Defendant to live together

③ The Plaintiff said that the Defendant would pay 500,000 won each month by operating studio Paf.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.10.22 2014가단16824

-수원지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단804073

-창원지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단7350

-부산지방법원 2021.02.16 2020가단12109

-대구지방법원포항지원 2019.05.16 2018가단6714