logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.09.20 2016가합49781
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 300,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 36% per annum from November 28, 2006 to September 30, 2015, and October 1, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “C”) and the Defendant, on November 1, 2006, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of performance of payment (hereinafter “each of the instant forms”) with the content of a notarial deed written on November 20, 2006, 150,000,000 won, November 27, 2006, and KRW 350,000,000 on December 20, 206, and KRW 350,000,000,000 on December 20, 206, respectively, as evidence.

B. On November 13, 2006, after the completion of each of the instant notes, the Defendant and C were the debtor and the plaintiff as the creditor and the debtor's agent, and the notary public lent a total of one billion won to the Defendant and C, as the law firm Asian deed No. 660 on November 13, 2006. The Defendant and C paid to the Plaintiff a total of one billion won on November 20, 2006, KRW 150,000,000 on November 27, 2006, KRW 350,000,000 on December 20, 206, and KRW 350,000 on October 350, 2006, and KRW 350,000,000 on January 10, 207, if the principal and interest of the Defendant and C have been repaid or delayed, the notarial deed was made to the Plaintiff at the rate of 36% (hereinafter referred to as "the notarial deed”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff invested KRW 1 billion in the Plaintiff C, and the Defendant, along with C, agreed with the Plaintiff to repay the said amount of KRW 1 billion as agreed in the instant letter and the instant notarial deed. As such, the Plaintiff, as part of the claim, sought payment of KRW 300 million and damages for delay.

B. The defendant did not confer the power of attorney on the preparation of the notarial deed of this case to the plaintiff. Thus, the notarial deed of this case is not effective against the defendant.

3. Determination

A. The main contents of the notarial deed of this case are the investment money and the share acquisition price, which the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff in the respective letter of this case.

arrow