(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2021.01.28 2020나48175

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 2021.01.28 2020나48175

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the first instance, 12,857,142 won, 8,571,429 won, 8,571, 429 won, and 8,571, 429 won, respectively, against the Defendant A.

Reasons

1. As to this part of the basic facts, this court’s reasoning is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, and thus, citing this in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The defendant borrowed 56 million won from all of the deceased to the deceased, and thus, the defendant is obligated to change the above to the plaintiff who is the inheritor of the deceased.

B. The Defendant borrowed money from around 2011 to February 2015 to the Deceased several times, but paid the money to the end of February 2015.

If the deceased still remains in full payment and does not sign a loan certificate, it is inevitable to have signed the loan certificate of this case prepared by the deceased by threatening the defendant's husband to know about the fact that the defendant would have acquired a large amount of money by deceiving him/her, and it is not true that he/she borrowed money to the deceased as stated in the loan certificate of this case.

The loan amount of KRW 30 million on July 15, 2016 includes the amount of KRW 26 million on February 4, 2016.

3. According to the evidence Nos. 4, 6, and 13 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply) of the judgment, it can be acknowledged that the deceased urged the defendant to repay several times from December 2, 2015 to January 2, 2020 (before the death of three days), and that the defendant responded to the purport that "the defendant would promptly repay," and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the deceased received the certificate of borrowing of this case by threatening the defendant.

Therefore, the defendant bears the obligation to return the loan to the deceased according to the loan certificate of this case.

Meanwhile, even though the loan symptoms of this case did not have a large amount, the plaintiffs failed to submit financial data, etc. supporting the deceased's lending of the amount to the defendant around that time (the plaintiffs asserted that the deceased lent the amount to a third party in cash and lent it to the defendant in cash). The loan certificates of this case did not state all the time of repayment or interest that is ordinarily stated.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2021.01.28 2020나48175

-수원지방법원 2018.04.12 2017나62136

-서울고등법원 2018.08.22 2018나2007434

-대전지방법원 2018.02.13 2016나105327

-광주지방법원 2018.04.27 2014재나11