(영문) 광주고등법원 2019.01.18 2018나23680

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) 광주고등법원 2019.01.18 2018나23680

양수금

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 reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance citing the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is reasonable and acceptable.

2. As to the assertion made by this court

A. 1) The Defendant’s assertion that the obligation under the instant investment agreement is a personal obligation of D) was not reflected in the Defendant’s financial statements at the time of entering into the instant investment agreement with C, and the said investment amount was merely about KRW 400 million and it is difficult to normally run the aggregate extraction business. Therefore, it is reasonable to deem that the obligation under the instant investment agreement is an individual obligation of D, not the Defendant,. Therefore, if the Defendant is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff who acquired the claim for the refund of the instant investment amount from C, and the following circumstances are gathered in full view of the various circumstances indicated in the reasoning of the first instance judgment cited prior to the determination, as well as the purport of the entire pleadings, the obligor under the instant investment agreement is the Defendant.

The judgment of the first instance court to the same purport is just, and the evidence submitted by the defendant alone cannot be viewed differently.

Defendant’s assertion is not accepted.

① As to the facts charged that D, while having kept the Defendant’s proceeds from the sale of aggregate, remitted KRW 20 million to H (C) in order to discharge his/her personal obligation, the appellate court found D’s failure to record D’s obligation to refund investment funds to H (C) in the Defendant’s account book. However, D’s remittance to H (C) in order to return its investment funds to H (C) and it is difficult to deem D’s embezzlement.

2. The instant investment agreement, which is a disposal document, stipulates that Eul (C) shall make an investment in cash within the limit of KRW 400 million in connection with the aggregate extraction business to Gap (Defendant) and that D shall be the defendant's guarantor.

On the other hand, D personally.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2017.11.03 2017나683

-수원지방법원 2019. 6. 18. 선고 2018나83000 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2013.03.21 2012노4204

-대구지방법원 2018.10.18 2018나301136

-서울고등법원 2015.11.27 2015나13647