beta
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단13419

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Defendant’s assertion of the cause of the instant claim is, on February 15, 2006, a letter of commitment to the effect that, while borrowing KRW 150 million from the network C to construct a kimchi factory in Gangwon-si, an agro-industrial complex, it shall be paid KRW 150 million to the network C by March 10, 2006, and if the Defendant is unpaid, it may be transferred to a third party.”

(2) The Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 150,000,00 and interest in arrears. 2. The Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 150,000,00 and interest in arrears. The Defendant’s statement and delivery of the instant letter of commitment to the Plaintiff is without dispute between the parties, or the Plaintiff’s possession of the instant letter of commitment may be recognized by the purport of the entire statement and pleading. However, the Plaintiff’s assertion itself is not in the position of claiming the Defendant’s claim for the payment of the loan amount or the loan amount under the instant letter of commitment, as it appears that the Defendant would have prepared the instant letter of commitment to the Plaintiff. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff received the claim under the instant letter of commitment from the deceased C, and that the transfer of the nominative claim cannot be asserted against the obligor without notifying the obligor or with the obligor’s consent (see Article 450(1) of the Civil Act, see Article 450(1) of the record, and it does not require the Plaintiff to give notice or consent to the Defendant to this part of this.

On the other hand, the argument of the cause of the claim in this case cannot be accepted, since the plaintiff did not assert or prove the right to claim the above agreed amount or the borrowed amount under the letter of undertaking of this case.

3. Accordingly, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.