logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원포항지원 2014.05.19 2013가합879
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 16, 2004, the Plaintiff, a representative director, and the Defendant, as a company with inside directors, owns 50% of the shares issued by the Plaintiff, and C and the Defendant purchased D & D 665.8m2 (hereinafter “instant land”) from the Northern-si, Mag-gu, Magdong on the same day, and completed the registration for transfer of ownership on the same day.

B. From around 2004 to 2008, F remitted total of KRW 400 million to the account under the Defendant’s name, G, the Defendant’s father, H, and the Defendant’s name. On August 20, 2008, F completed the registration of creation of a collateral for the instant land in the future of the maximum debt amount, KRW 450 million, and the debtor E, and the Plaintiff completed the registration of establishment of a collateral for the instant land on December 24, 2010.

C. The defect that F would apply to C for an auction on the instant land, the Plaintiff, on April 23, 2013, remitted KRW 200 million to the deposit account in the Defendant’s name, and paid the money to F.

F has cancelled the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage on the same day and completed the registration of the establishment of a mortgage near the debtor as the defendant in the future.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2, Gap evidence 2, 4, Eul evidence 1-3, witness F's testimony, the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The parties’ assertion that on April 23, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 200 million to the Defendant and demanded the Plaintiff to repay KRW 200 million out of the Defendant’s debt to F. As such, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 200 million and delay damages therefor to the Plaintiff. Accordingly, the Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff was not the Defendant’s debt to F but the Plaintiff’s debt to F, and the Defendant merely repaid the Plaintiff’s debt to F through the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not borrow KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot comply with the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. Determination of Gap evidence 5, Eul evidence 3, Eul evidence 5-1 to 4.

arrow