beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.08.25 2017가단22627

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 114,021,00 and interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from March 18, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) on January 14, 2014, lent USD 98,557.40 to the Defendant. 2) The Defendant asserted that the Defendant established and operates a local corporation Vietnam, called B Limited Liability Company (B Co., Ltd.) in order to produce clothing, etc., such as a vegetable ticket, etc., and the Defendant is not the Defendant but the B Limited Liability Company, and the amount transferred by the Plaintiff was paid in advance for the B Limited Liability Company.

B. Determination 1) In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments as stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 4, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that the plaintiff remitted USD 98,557.40 to the financial account under the name of the defendant on January 14, 2014. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and 4, the defendant established the B limited liability company incorporated with the investment permission from Vietnam on October 2008 with the investment permission from Vietnam, and the plaintiff traded goods with the B limited liability company and supplied them to the plaintiff, and it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff remitted the money for clothing as advance payment to B limited liability company.

3) However, the following circumstances, which may be recognized or may be acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the aforementioned evidence and evidence as well as evidence Nos. 3 and 5 (including a serial number, and the entire purport of pleadings, i.e., the Plaintiff remitted the said money to the Defendant’s financial account, not a financial account of the limited liability company B, and the Defendant sent the Plaintiff, on October 12, 2014, e-mail, to the effect that “A president’s obligation is repaid in any way,” and the Plaintiff sent to the Plaintiff, on February 22, 2017, a mail proving contents that “A president’s obligation is repaid in any way,” and it does not appear that it was particularly rebuttaled even if the Plaintiff sent the Defendant with a notice to repay outstanding loans.