logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2018.08.08 2018나20523
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3-1, 4, 5, and Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, and Eul evidence Nos. 7-1, the plaintiff demanded the defendant to repay his/her debt to the plaintiff on or around May 29, 2017. The defendant agreed to pay 20 million won to the plaintiff on a temporary basis and agreed to pay 20,000,000 won to the plaintiff on a temporary basis and confirmed it again. According to the above facts of recognition, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the amount of 20,000,000 won on the record that the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint of this case and damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 15% as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from August 8, 2017 to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. First of all, the Defendant may be deemed to guarantee the obligation of the Defendant. According to the special law for the protection of the guarantor, since the guarantee has an effect to indicate in writing the name and seal or signature of the guarantor, the Defendant did not prepare the same document, so the above agreement is null and void, and thus, the former Special Act on the Protection of the Surety (amended by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015) stipulated the same contents as the Defendant alleged in Article 3. However, while revising the special law for the protection of the guarantor by Act No. 13125, Feb. 3, 2015, there is no provision that the guarantor should delete Article 3 and indicate in writing the signature and seal or signature at the time of the agreement. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense based on the existence of such provision is without merit.

B. Next, on June 2, 2017, the Defendant read the Plaintiff’s words “Irreged with Ngr. Sgrat. Sgrat’s mar. Sgrat’s mar. Sgrat’s mar’s mar.”

arrow