(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.14 2018나75063

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.14 2018나75063

추심금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

Claim:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 14, 2017, the Plaintiff filed an application for the seizure and collection order with the Seoul Southern District Court (Seoul Southern District Court 2017TTTT 2017TT 112677, based on the authentic copy of a notarial deed (No. 140, 2016), which was prepared between C and C as to the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of loans to the Defendant against the third obligor of the obligor C, by stating the claim amount as KRW 20 million and stating the claim amount as KRW 20 million.

B. On December 19, 2017, the Plaintiff received a seizure and collection order (hereinafter “the seizure and collection order of the instant claim”) from the Seoul Southern District Court to the effect that “C seizes the part of the claim for return of loans it has against the Defendant up to KRW 20 million, and the said seized claims may be collected by the Plaintiff,” and each of the above orders issued to the Defendant on December 22, 2017.

C. Meanwhile, on May 4, 2016, C remitted KRW 12 million to the Defendant’s bank account (hereinafter “instant money”).

【In the absence of a dispute over a part of the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 (including additional number), 3, 4, and 10, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the amount of this case was leased to the Defendant by C, and C has the right to refund the loan amount of KRW 12 million against the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff, who received a collection order, the collection amount of KRW 12 million with respect to the claim for the return of the loan to the Defendant of C, to the Plaintiff who received the collection order.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the instant money was received by the Defendant as the principal (financial director) of E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant company”) operated by C, and did not borrow money from C, and the Defendant did not have any obligation to return it to the Plaintiff.

3. Determination

A. Whether the instant money is a loan or loan shall be the Defendant’s bank account on May 4, 2016.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원서부지원 2020.06.03 2019가단6762

-서울고등법원 2021.02.02 2020나2019683

-수원지방법원 2019.03.07 2017가단22007

-부산지방법원 2015.10.21 2015가단53823

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.09.10 2015가단31802