logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원안양지원 2015.09.16 2015가단6355
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 89,737,404 and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum from June 22, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion was that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10,000,00 in the name of the Plaintiff from the Korea Cmat Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Cmat Bank”) on January 2, 2013 and lent it to the Defendant. The Defendant and the Defendant agreed to receive the said loan by way of repaying the installment payment for the said loan on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Since February 4, 2013 to March 2, 2015, the Defendant repaid the installment of the above loan to the Sti Bank. However, from April 3, 2015, the Defendant refused to repay the installment repayment. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the remaining loan, namely, the remaining loan, 89,737,404 won, and damages for delay.

B. On March 26, 2006, the plaintiff, at the time of the defendant's marriage, promised to donate the apartment owned by the plaintiff to the defendant and his spouse C at the time of the defendant's marriage, but this was in the next day, the defendant was granted a loan of KRW 110,00,000 from the CT Bank with the indication of the United States box that it was difficult for the defendant to purchase the cargo vehicle due to the lack of the cargo vehicle.

After that, it is true that the Defendant repaid the installment of the above loans, but this is due to the fact that the Plaintiff promised to donate apartment houses and demanded the Defendant to repay the installment payments, not because the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 110,000 from the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the plaintiff's above assertion that the above KRW 110,000,000 is a loan is without merit.

2. Therefore, in full view of the following facts, the Plaintiff’s apartment owned by the Plaintiff on January 2, 2013, based on the following facts: (a) whether a KRW 110,00,000 is a loan or a gift amount; and (b) the Plaintiff’s apartment owned by the Plaintiff on January 2, 2013.

arrow