(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.14 2016가단249520

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.04.14 2016가단249520

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff, on October 1, 2014, remitted a total of KRW 45 million ( KRW 60 million KRW 5 million KRW), including KRW 7 million on October 3, 2014, KRW 50 million on October 31, 2014, KRW 50 million on October 31, 2014, KRW 70 million on December 29, 2014, and KRW 45 million on January 12, 2015, to the Defendant’s ancillary C’s account is no dispute between the parties.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the money remitted as above is a loan and sought a refund of principal and a payment of damages for delay to the Defendant.

B. On the other hand, the Plaintiff only submits a copy of the passbook (No. 1), a copy of the Defendant’s restaurant name (No. 2), a copy of the Defendant’s restaurant name (No. 2), and a D’s statement (No. 30,000 won and KRW 1,50 million) that the Defendant received to the Plaintiff as evidence supporting the claim.

However, considering the following: (a) the description and image of the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 (including each number) and the circumstance in which the Plaintiff and the Defendant were able to be identified by the purport of the entire testimony and pleadings of witnesses E, F, and testimony and arguments between the Plaintiff and the Defendant; (b) the Plaintiff’s speech and behavior made by the Plaintiff to the Defendant and its neighbors; (c) the circumstances in which the money was deposited; (d) the opportunity when the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return money; and (e) the time when the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to return money, it is difficult to readily reject the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff and the Defendant were merely the money corresponding to each other in the sense that they would help the Defendant’s difficult circumstances while

Therefore, it is difficult to readily conclude that the money transferred by the Plaintiff was a loan solely on the basis of each statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

4. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2015.08.20 2015가단3652

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.18 2015가단38297

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.14 2015나17400

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2021.02.10 2020가단4763

-수원지방법원 2017.04.14 2015나35772