beta
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.10.07 2015나4281

약정금반환

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim, it is recognized that the Plaintiff’s account in the Plaintiff’s name was transferred from February 19, 2010 to the Defendant’s account on February 19, 2010, and the Defendant’s loan certificate in the Defendant’s name as of February 19, 2010 stated to the effect that the Defendant will borrow KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff and, if not repaid, the Defendant will be held liable for civil or criminal liability.

According to the above facts of recognition, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff. The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,000,000 and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from December 13, 2013 to the day of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. The Defendant’s assertion regarding the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff intended to offer 200,000,000 won for the Plaintiff’s successful bid for low-price bid, on the ground that the Plaintiff’s payment date on April 1, 2010 is the date of the Plaintiff’s sales price.

However, the Defendant’s assertion seems to be the “successful bid date” in the purport that the highest price was reported on the date of sale, not the date of payment.

The date of sale is the same as February 19, 2010, which is the date of account transfer.

In doing so, it is alleged that the Defendant paid KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant, but not borrowed.

There is a possibility of existence of the agreement as alleged by the defendant.

However, if the plaintiff success in the successful bid and paid KRW 50,000,000 to the defendant on the date of the successful bid, it is difficult for the defendant to understand the reasons why the defendant prepared the above loan certificate and there is no other reasonable explanation.

Therefore, regardless of whether the right to claim remuneration has occurred, at least 50.