logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.11.14 2017나2024654
대여금청구 및 사해행위취소
Text

1. Each appeal by the Defendants is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Claim for loans to Defendant B

A. From August 8, 2008 to July 2014, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 274,000,000 to Defendant B as follows. The amount of the temporary amount of KRW 50,000,000 on September 50, 2012 as the temporary amount of KRW 30,000 on August 8, 2008, KRW 30,000,000 on April 40, 200, KRW 30,000 on April 40, 200, KRW 10,000 on a total of KRW 10,000,000 on January 9, 200, KRW 00,000 on a 10,000,00 on a 00,000,000 on a 10,000,000 on a 10,000, 205.7,2010

The temporary amount of KRW 1,50,000 on November 11, 2014; KRW 5,000,000 on June 30, 2015; KRW 10,400,000 on September 16, 2015; KRW 5,00,000 on September 2, 2015; KRW 00,000 on March 5, 2015; KRW 1,00,00 on October 1, 19,00,000 on KRW 0,00 on April 62, 2015; KRW 1,50,000 on KRW 1,00 on KRW 1,00 on KRW 1,00 on KRW 1,00 on KRW 3,00,00 on KRW 3,00 on condition that there was no dispute over the overall amount of KRW 10,00 on April 23, 2015; and

B. According to the facts of the above recognition, Defendant B appears to have not set the due date for each of the loans of this case in accordance with each of the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 9, and the whole purport of the pleadings in Gap evidence No. 12, No. 12, No. 8, and No. 9, the plaintiff is deemed to have already claimed the repayment of each of the loans against Defendant B prior to the filing of the lawsuit of this case. Thus, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case sought by the plaintiff pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act shall be deemed to have already arrived at the due date for the payment of each of the loans of this case.

Since April 7, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case against Defendant B sought by the Plaintiff, until May 2, 2017, which is the date of the first instance judgment, deemed reasonable for Defendant B to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation.

arrow