logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.03 2015가단5312369
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff had been living together since the spring of 2007 with the Defendant’s Defendant’s license. The Defendant studying Russia lent money to international telephone on November 12, 2009, and informed the Defendant’s pro rata Bank account under the Defendant’s name. On the same day, the Plaintiff lent KRW 300,000 to the said account on December 22, 2010 and lent KRW 4,250,000 to the said account (specific details were transferred from the Plaintiff’s national bank account to the said DNA account) and attached Table 1-1-2 (the details transferred from the Plaintiff’s national bank account to the said DNA account) and attached Table 1-2 (the details transferred from the Plaintiff’s National Bank account to the said DNA account) and C through C).

2. 23. Each of the 23. 1 million won lent KRW 2 million.

B. In addition, through C, the Defendant borrowed 8 million won in total over several times from the Plaintiff’s female employee E, and 8 million won in total from the Plaintiff’s friendship F, respectively, and thereafter, the Plaintiff paid each of the above money.

C. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 2.25 million (the KRW 6.25 million that the Plaintiff lent to the Plaintiff, which was subrogated by the Plaintiff, KRW 16 million) and damages for delay.

2. In addition to the purport of the entire pleadings in each statement in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, as shown in the attached Table 1-1, KRW 2,50,000 was remitted from the National Bank Account (G) in the Plaintiff’s name to the Cit Bank account (H) as shown in the attached Table 1-1, and the sum of KRW 2,200,000 was remitted from the Plaintiff’s Nong Bank Account (I) to the above D’s name as shown in the attached Table No. 1-2, but the above facts of recognition and the evidence submitted by the Plaintiff are insufficient to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff directly lent money to the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow