beta
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.11.30 2017나105126

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

Basic Facts

The plaintiff and the defendant live in the same village for several years and live in the same village, and the defendant requested the plaintiff to pay KRW 100,000,000,000 to the plaintiff, stating that the plaintiff would purchase the factory site and obtain the permission and return to a third party after selling it. Within three months, the plaintiff would pay the proceeds of KRW 50,000,000 as well as the principal.

As above, the Defendant asked the Plaintiff to pay KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff stated to the effect that the Plaintiff would receive a loan from the Defendant as collateral, and then, the interest amounting to KRW 100,000,000 from the 1,00,000 from the 10,000 Military Co., Ltd. 2 Dong-dong branch of the Seoan Daisan Daisan Dai-dong Co., Ltd. on June 26, 2009 refers to the market procurement interest rate of the bank as a general loan MORet Foundation Foundation.

[3] A loan under an agreement with interest rate of 9,160,300 won among them was paid to the defendant on the same day.

(hereinafter “the instant money”). However, at the time of receiving the instant money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant was in a situation in which it was unable to bring profits out of the real estate development project, which was invested through a third party, due to the ignorance of the prospects of the said real estate development project, and was in a state that the Plaintiff had no ability to return the instant money together with the profits for three months.

Ultimately, the Defendant did not return the instant money to the Plaintiff, unlike the initial promise, and the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff a total of 3,865,281 won of the loan interest rate in accordance with the general loan MO [3 months] interest rate agreed at the time of the loan from July 27, 2009 to June 9, 2015 (the highest rate of 7.29% per annum from the lowest rate of 4.96% per annum during the above period was applied).

Meanwhile, as above, the Defendant was prosecuted for fraud by deceiving the Plaintiff, and was sentenced to a conviction of nine months from the first instance court to June 16, 2016 (Seoul District Court Decision 2015Da17666), and the appellate court on December 21, 2016.