logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 대법원 2015.12.24 2015다51364
대여금
Text

The judgment below

The part against the plaintiff is reversed, and that part of the case is remanded to the Seoul High Court.

Reasons

The grounds of appeal are examined.

1. The lower court accepted the Plaintiff’s claim on the instant claim that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 339,00,000 over 11 times, such as the loan details stated in the attached Table of the lower judgment, and sought the return thereof, by recognizing the loan details Nos. 1 through 3, 5, and 10, and accepted the Plaintiff’s claim. However, the lower court did not accept the Plaintiff’s claim on the grounds that there was no evidence to support the fact that the Plaintiff paid KRW 80,000,000 to the Defendant on September 5, 2013, 2013 as loans No. 4 No. 5,000 and No. 111.

2. However, the above determination by the court below is difficult to accept for the following reasons.

According to the records, the plaintiff loaned the funds of the hospital to the defendant's account after receiving a request from the defendant who jointly operates the hospital and C to transfer the funds of the hospital to the defendant's account. The defendant used four national bank accounts (Account Number: K, L, M, and N) in the name of "B (D Hospital)" in relation to the operation of the hospital. However, the defendant submitted all the details of the deposits and the details of the deposits in the three accounts among the above accounts to the court below as evidence, but failed to submit them as evidence for the account.

Furthermore, in light of the above national bank K account withdrawal statement (Evidence B No. 5-1), the fact that KRW 5,00,000 on December 21, 2012 increased by approximately KRW 80,000 on September 5, 2013 is also revealed.

B. In the same way, the lower court should clearly state the details of the deposit and the remitters, etc. in relation to the remaining balance of the account in the above statement of the Plaintiff’s claim at the time of remittance of the loan, and then consider whether the loan alleged by the Plaintiff was actually paid or not, as stated in its reasoning.

arrow