(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.10.20 2016가단27935

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 2017.10.20 2016가단27935

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 remitted KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on September 26, 2014 is not a dispute between the parties.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff asserts that the said money was a loan and sought the return of the principal and the payment of damages for delay after the delivery of a copy of the complaint.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the plaintiff was given advice and assistance to open a restaurant, and that the plaintiff was paid for the management and operation of the restaurant so that it can actually get commuting to and from work, and that it is not a loan.

B. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in Nos. 1 through 3, the defendant is recognized to have been engaged in preparation activities, such as selecting the place of business, indoor interior interior interior interior interior interior interior interior supervision, and purchasing of office fixtures, etc., when the plaintiff opens a store around October 2014, the plaintiff started a store at the end of the end of the same year, and left a store at least every two months until the end of December of the same year, and shared significantly the actions necessary for the operation of the restaurant, such as hiring of the main and part-time employees and purchase of materials.

Therefore, even though the plaintiff remitted 30,000,000 won to the defendant around September 26, 2014, there is a possibility that the plaintiff would be money corresponding to each subparagraph in the context as alleged by the defendant.

On the other hand, despite the Defendant’s aforementioned assertion, the Plaintiff submitted only a copy of the passbook (No. A. 1) whose money was remitted as evidence, and did not submit any particular evidence supporting that the said money was a loan.

Therefore, the Plaintiff’s proof is insufficient regarding the fact that the instant KRW 30,000,000 is loans.

3. The plaintiff's claim for the conclusion is dismissed on the ground that it is without merit.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2019.11.22 2018나11761

-수원지방법원 2015.01.15 2014나29787

-서울서부지방법원 2015.05.13 2014가단40179

-울산지방법원 2021.02.18 2020나11988

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.09 2014나11449