logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.03.24 2015가합2786
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 272,830,00 for the Plaintiff and KRW 5% per annum from August 3, 2015 to March 24, 2016.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On March 4, 2014, the Plaintiff lent KRW 270,2830,00 to the Defendant. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 277,2830,000 and interest for delay.

B. It was true that the Defendant received KRW 270,2830,000 from the Plaintiff. However, the said money was donated by the Plaintiff to the Defendant, who was the Plaintiff’s member of the business, due to the Plaintiff’s business difficulties, using the said money as business funds, and the loan certificate (Evidence A A) is merely a form of preparation in order to avoid gift tax.

Even if the above money was loaned, it is appropriated to the living expenses of the defendant's family, and paid through legal act regarding the daily home life of the married couple. Thus, the defendant is liable to pay the above money only jointly and severally with the husband C.

2. Determination

A. 1) Where a contractual party prepares in writing a certain content of a contract as a disposal document, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence and content of the expression of intent should be recognized. In a case where a different interpretation from the objective meaning of the text causes serious impact on the legal relationship between the parties, the content of the text should be more strict interpretation (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decisions 2010Da26769, Nov. 11, 2010; 201Da78958, Dec. 8, 2011; 2012Da64253, Oct. 15, 2015). 2) In light of the aforementioned legal principles, in light of the foregoing legal principles, the instant case is health care unit; the Plaintiff paid KRW 27,283,000,000 to the Defendant on March 4, 2014; and the Defendant paid KRW 27,380,000.

“The fact that the Plaintiff prepared a documentary loan (No. 1) and delivered it to the Plaintiff is without dispute between the parties, and there is no special circumstance to interpret the objective meaning of the language stated in the above loan certificate clearly and differently.

arrow