(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.07.14 2017가단3034

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) 서울서부지방법원 2017.07.14 2017가단3034

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 31,240,000 won to the plaintiff and 15% per annum from March 21, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff shall pay the amount of KRW 3,124,00 to the Defendant from July 2012 to November 2013, 2013.

B. The Defendant’s money received from the Plaintiff is not a loan, but a wage received from the Plaintiff while working in the restaurant “C” operated by the Plaintiff, and thus, cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The following facts can be acknowledged in full view of the evidence No. 1 and No. 1-1 and No. 2 of the evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings.

1) When the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant in fraud, the Seoul Western District Prosecutors’ Office indicted the Defendant as a criminal fact that “the Defendant, from July 31, 2012 to October 16, 2013, by deceiving the Plaintiff as if he had paid off the money, and by deceiving 3,274,00 won in total 14 times from around July 31, 2012 to October 16, 2013.” 2) Seoul Western District Court (2) found the Defendant guilty of all criminal facts against the Defendant on July 5, 2016 and sentenced the Defendant for eight months.

The defendant appealed against this, but (Seoul Western District Court 2016No947) was dismissed on October 27, 2016, and the judgment was finalized on November 4, 2016.

3) In the above criminal case, the defendant argued that the money that the defendant received from the plaintiff was not the borrowed money, but the money received as compensation for work. However, in light of various various circumstances, the above court judged that the defendant was employed by the plaintiff at the time and borrowed money from the plaintiff rather than the money received as wages, and that the defendant obtained the borrowed money, and did not accept the defendant's defense. (B) The defendant's defense was not accepted in the civil trial, even though it was not bound by the facts recognized in the criminal trial, the facts recognized in the judgment of the related criminal case that became guilty was already found in the civil trial, even if it was not bound by the facts established in the criminal trial, and

Supreme Court Decision 200

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.11.12 2013가단38599

-서울서부지방법원 2019.10.17 2019가단4352

-인천지방법원 2020.11.18 2020나94

-의정부지방법원 2020.12.22 2019나4473

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.12.11 2019나75251