(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.10.14 2016나34969

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 2016.10.14 2016나34969

청구이의

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 15, 2012, Industrial Complex Loan Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Industrial Complex Loan”) agreed to lend KRW 2 million to the Defendant at an interest rate of KRW 36.5% per annum and the due date on July 15, 2015. On the same day, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 2 million to the passbook bank account of the national bank on the same day.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

on June 28, 2013, Busan High Court Decision 2015 tea357241, which issued a payment order with respect to the instant loan against the Plaintiff, and on January 21, 2016, issued a payment order with respect to KRW 3,552,430 and KRW 1,886,49, calculated at the rate of 36.5% per annum from the above court to the date of full payment.

hereinafter referred to as "the payment order of this case"

(C) The instant payment order was served on January 26, 2016 on the Plaintiff, and it became final and conclusive on February 12, 2016 due to the Plaintiff’s failure to file an objection. [The fact that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, each of the entry in B(1) through B(6), and the purport of the entire pleadings.

2. The plaintiff asserted that, upon the request of B, he did not have joint and several sureties to obtain the instant loan from B, and that the plaintiff immediately transferred the money deposited by the plaintiff's passbook to B, and therefore, the plaintiff did not have any obligation to obtain the loan from the defendant.

The plaintiff's assertion is that, although the actual principal debtor B, the actual principal debtor B, obtained the loan of this case, the plaintiff was carrying out the loan of this case with the intent not to be held liable as the debtor against the plaintiff by understanding the loan of this case, and since there is no evidence to prove the plaintiff's assertion or the fact that B was involved in the loan of this case, the above assertion is without merit.

Rather, it is true.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.19 2016가단5045246

-대법원 1999. 3. 12. 선고 98다48989 판결

-청주지방법원 2015.05.28 2014가단17046

-부산지방법원 2012.05.31 2011가합13701

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.14 2015나59152