(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.01.30 2014가단58760

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) 부산지방법원 2015.01.30 2014가단58760

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. On August 8, 2009, the Plaintiff set the maturity date of KRW 90 million to the Defendant on August 30, 2010.

2. In full view of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with C (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) with which the Defendant is holding office as a director on August 18, 2009, as follows.

Article 1 (Investment Purpose and Investment Schedule) The purpose of the Plaintiff’s investment in money in the non-party company is to generate profits from the development, light, export of China and domestic sales, and to enable the Plaintiff to make an investment of KRW 100 million first on August 18, 2009, and to transfer all amounts to the bank account designated by the non-party company.

Since then, the plaintiff and the non-party company will make an investment in the amount of KRW 200 million in a way that does not interfere with the progress of the work.

Article 2 (Period of Redemption of Principal) The non-party company shall be liable and reimburse for the principal until August 30, 2010.

In principle, it is impossible to extend the repayment date of principal and interest, but it is possible to request the consent of the plaintiff at least two months before only once.

On the contrary, it is possible to give notice to the non-party company at least two months prior to the withdrawal of the investment amount if it is requested for consent.

In addition, however, the Plaintiff entered into an investment agreement with the Defendant, not the non-party company.

With respect to the lending of money to the defendant or the defendant, it is not sufficient to recognize only the statement of No. 2, but there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

In addition, as alleged by the Plaintiff, even if the Defendant owned 100% of the shares of the non-party company and operated the non-party company as its representative, such circumstance alone cannot be viewed as the same person as the Defendant and the non-party company under the law.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단68360

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.07.10 2017가단6759

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.01.12 2015가합100919

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.20 2014나67880

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2013.11.06 2012가단20170