(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2019.05.10 2018가단226421

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) 서울서부지방법원 2019.05.10 2018가단226421

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 30% per annum from October 2, 2011 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 1997, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an agreement with the Plaintiff that “The Plaintiff lent KRW 30,000,000 to the Defendant on March 14, 1997, and the Defendant shall be repaid the amount to the Plaintiff up to April 20, 1998.” (Evidence A 2-1) that “In the event of postponement, the Plaintiff and the Defendant may delay the amount under the agreement of the Plaintiff and the Defendant.”

B. On November 17, 1997, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted an agreement stating that “I, on November 17, 1997, lend 40,00,000 won a day-to-day loan to the Plaintiff by the Defendant, I shall prepare and affix this agreement” (Evidence 2-2 of the A).

C. On October 2, 2011, the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that “In borrowing KRW 70,000,000 per day from the Plaintiff in 197, the Defendant promised that the Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff not later than December 30, 2013 (in borrowing KRW 70,000,000, monthly interest shall be paid to the Plaintiff, and if the Plaintiff dies, the Plaintiff shall be paid to the friendly C, and the certificate of borrowing shall be prepared.” (A evidence 1; hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

[Ground of certification] Evidence No. 1 and Evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the borrowed principal, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 as the borrowed principal.

In regard to this, the defendant argues that ① the plaintiff has invested KRW 70,000,000 in the defendant's bond business, but did not lend KRW 70,000 to the defendant, ② the defendant prepared the loan certificate of this case, but ② it was prepared by changing only formally to the purpose to show himself/herself, and is not effective, and ③ it is not effective by the fact that the plaintiff prepared the loan certificate of this case without recognizing that the extinctive prescription has expired.

On the other hand, the defendant's assertion (1) is prior to the recognition of Gap evidence No. 1 and Gap evidence No. 2-1 and No. 2, which was duly adopted and investigated as a disposition document.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2016.04.19 2015가단10488

-부산고등법원(창원) 2017.12.14 2017나22332

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.08.22 2017가단88868

-인천지방법원 2021.03.30 2020가단245957

-서울동부지방법원 2015.06.17 2014나23067