logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.08.14 2017가단548493
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The plaintiff's lawsuit against the defendant B shall be dismissed.

2. The Plaintiff’s obligation to borrow loans as of August 3, 2016 against Defendant C is 156.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff purchased 3226 square meters from Pyeongtaek-si Co., Ltd. and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. The above A.

At the time of the sales contract under paragraph (1), F prepared the purchase price for the Plaintiff, and F requested Defendant C to lend money to Defendant C through Defendant B, and Defendant C loaned KRW 250 million to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant monetary loan agreement”), and on August 3, 2016, the Plaintiff completed the registration of the establishment of a neighboring mortgage covering KRW 300 million with respect to the instant real estate on August 3, 2016 for securing the obligation to borrow money to Defendant C.

There is no dispute over the repayment of principal by all the parties on August 3, 2016, the amount paid on the date of payment (won) and August 30, 2016.

October 17, 2016: 10,000,000 on November 3, 2016; 2,000,00 on November 23, 2016; 2,00,00 on November 15, 200,00 on December 28, 2016; 5,000,00 on December 6, 2016; 00 on December 9, 2016; 00,00 on May 6, 200, 100,00 on May 1, 200, 200, 100, 100, 100,00 on May 10, 200, 200; 15,00 on July 10, 2017;

C. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff’s repayment of the above loan amount of KRW 250 million to Defendant C was set at one month or at least three months from the date of borrowing, and the said loan cannot be repaid to Defendant C with the maturity of the repayment.

Accordingly, on October 2016, the Plaintiff agreed to pay KRW 10 million each month to Defendant C (hereinafter “instant agreement”) and paid money to Defendant C as indicated below.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5, witness F's testimony, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Ex officio determination (the part of the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B) is related to the monetary loan contract of this case with the defendant Eul, together with the defendant Eul.

arrow