beta
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.02.08 2017가단3039

차용금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 50,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 19, 2016 to December 20, 2016; and (b) the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff transferred the account transfer to the Defendant of KRW 13 million on July 11, 2016, KRW 37 million on the same month, and KRW 50 million on the account transfer.

B. On July 19, 2016, the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C signed each of the following agreements: (a) the Plaintiff and each of them signed the loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan certificates”); and (b) the agreement pertaining thereto.

The loan certificate

1. A Return;

2. Cre-loan: The above-mentioned amount shall be borrowed from two above-mentioned one million won per day on a one-day basis, each of which shall be three months from July 19, 2016 on the date of borrowing, and the period of borrowing shall be three months from July 19, 2016, and the remuneration for the use of and benefit from the above-mentioned amount shall be determined separately by consultation.

The above borrower B(Signature) creditor: A(Signature) C(Signature)(based on recognition) A(based on A), Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 2-1 and 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion (1) Inasmuch as the loan maturity stipulated in the instant loan certificate has expired, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 50,000,000 and the next day after the due date (the next container) pursuant to the instant agreement, which is a monetary loan loan agreement.

(1) The Plaintiff’s primary claim is the Plaintiff’s primary claim for the return of the borrowed amount, the first and second preliminary claim for the return of the agreed amount, and the second and second claims for damages, but each of the above claims cannot be deemed as incompatible in light of its nature. However, it shall be determined in the order determined by the Plaintiff. However, even if the instant agreement is not a monetary loan loan contract, it shall be deemed that the principal is to be returned. Thus, even if the instant agreement is not a monetary loan contract, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages therefrom from the day after the delivery of the copy of the instant claim and

(3) The defendant did not have any intention or ability to develop the automatic trading program with D, etc. and collected 50 million won by himself.