logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2015.05.29 2014나2047823
대여금반환
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. The fact that the Defendant prepared and delivered the following documents (No. 5, hereinafter “instant documents”) to the Plaintiff on November 8, 2013 does not conflict between the parties.

Each of the instant notes consists of two pages.

B. Each of the instant notes 1 is as shown in the annexed sheet “the details of tea and reimbursement.”

C. Each of the two pages of the instant case state that “I, as soon as possible, recognize the loan amount on the front and promise to repay as possible.”

2. The parties' assertion

A. A. A summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 71 billion,00,000,000,000 to 13 times from March 21, 200 to August 17, 2004, as indicated in the [Attachment 2] “The details of tea and reimbursement”. The Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 559,000,000,000,000 from November 17, 200 to September 7, 2004, as indicated in the [Attachment 2] “the details of tea and reimbursement.”

3) Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 142 million (i.e., KRW 71 million - KRW 550 million - KRW 500 million) and damages for delay thereof. (b) The summary of the Defendant’s assertion that the Plaintiff claimed that the Plaintiff lent the Defendant a loan to the Defendant is KRW 710 million, and the Defendant would import the Home Integrative Products from Germany through the C Co., Ltd. operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “C”) at the time, and then sell the Home Integrative Products, etc. in Korea and invested in C. Since then, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to pay the respective damages at their own expense.

Therefore, the above monetary transaction entity is not only C but also C, and the nature of the above monetary transaction is not a loan, but also an investment bond, and each party bears losses. Thus, the defendant does not bear obligations against the plaintiff as alleged by the plaintiff.

(hereinafter referred to as “principal”) 2 On the other hand, the Defendant on November 18, 2013.

arrow