logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2014.10.17 2013가단36548
대여금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant to grant a loan of USD 21,600 to the Defendant, from March 25, 2013 to June 30, 2013, with an agreed interest rate of 6.9% per annum, and an overdue interest rate of 24% per annum (hereinafter “Agreement”).

B. At the time of the preparation of the instant agreement, Nonparty B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) affixed the Defendant’s seal as a guarantor for the Defendant’s above loan obligations against the Plaintiff, and signed and issued to the Plaintiff a letter of commitment with the following content on the same day.

① The money lent pursuant to the instant agreement shall be appropriated for the purchase and operation expenses of “C”, a corporation that is registered as a major shareholder.

(2) The above loans shall be repaid in the top priority as soon as us receives a distribution of the profits of cooperative projects with ear company.

C. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted USD 21,600 to the Defendant’s bank account.

[Ground of recognition] No. 2-1 of the evidence No. 2-1 (Evidence No. 2-1, No. 4, Gap evidence No. 8 (part), Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 11, Eul evidence No. 16 (part), and Eul evidence No. 16 (part), shall be established in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings. Meanwhile, although the defendant's wife delivered the defendant's corporate seal impression to Eul who is the employee of the non-party company, the defendant issued the non-party company's corporate seal impression, the use of the letter of credit or the service brokerage contract with the plaintiff was limited. However, the defendant argued that the above seal impression No. 7, Gap evidence No. 8 (part), Eul evidence No. 14, Eul evidence No. 16 (part), and witness No. 16 (part), and evidence No. 7 of the above evidence are also insufficient to recognize the above facts.

arrow