(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.11.04 2015나2844 | 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) 청주지방법원 2015.11.04 2015나2844

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 30,00,000 to the Defendant on June 15, 2012, and KRW 30,000,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant money”). The said money is a loan, and the Defendant prepared a lease contract with KRW 30,00,000,00 in order to prove this amount. Although the instant money is not a loan, it is not a loan, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the instant money and damages for delay, as the Defendant agreed on June 30, 2013 with text messages (Evidence (Evidence 2) that the Defendant would pay KRW 30,00,000 to the Plaintiff without any condition.

B. The Defendant agreed to operate the Plaintiff and C’s mobile phone business place and D’s party hall (hereinafter “instant party hall”) as a partnership business, and the Plaintiff invested KRW 30,000,000 as the above party hall’s operating expenses. Thus, the instant money is an investment amount, not a loan.

In addition, the defendant tried to pay the plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 to the plaintiff on the condition that the head of the party of this case should be disposed of, but since the defendant failed to take the disposition of the party of this case, he did not have the obligation to pay KRW 30,00,000 to the plaintiff

2. Determination

A. We examine whether the funds of this case paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant are loans, and the fact that the Plaintiff remitted the funds of this case to the Defendant is not disputed between the parties, or is recognized by the statement of Gap evidence No. 1. However, the above fact alone is insufficient to acknowledge that the funds of this case were loans, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Rather, in full view of the entries of Gap evidence No. 5 and the purport of the entire pleadings, it can be acknowledged that there was no separate interest or repayment agreement on the funds of this case, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the loan certificate or the lease agreement was made as claimed by the Plaintiff

(b).

유사 판례

-청주지방법원충주지원 2015.05.28 2014가단6759

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.01.15 2019가단5046196

-서울행정법원 2018.05.18 2017구합78117

-부산지방법원 2016.05.12 2014가단92630