logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016가단24478
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 125,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 19, 2015 to September 3, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts of recognition C, D, E, etc. conspired with the Plaintiff’s employees F, G to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff by using a false lease contract with the Plaintiff’s employees F, G.

(2) The Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a lease contract on October 16, 2015 on the second floor of H building No. 201 of Eunpyeong-gu, Seoul, which the Defendant entered as the lessee (a lessee: I.S.: 1.80 million won) and documents necessary for the loan, such as a loan agreement and a loan transaction agreement.

However, the defendant did not have entered into a lease contract with I on the housing above.

F and G have prepared internal documents as if the above loan application was made normally and approved by the Plaintiff president who is not aware of the circumstances.

Accordingly, on October 19, 2015, the Plaintiff misunderstood the Defendant as the genuine lessee, and remitted the amount of KRW 125 million to the Defendant’s account.

The contestants of this case were convicted of the criminal facts by deceiving the plaintiff and deceiving the loan by using a false lease contract submitted by the defendant, etc. as above.

(Seoul Western District Court 2016Gohap132, etc.). [Grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the case of a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act which causes damage to another person jointly, the joint tort does not require not only a conspiracy among actors, but also a common perception: Provided, That if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint act, the joint tort is established which is sufficiently sufficient and is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the pertinent joint act;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2181, May 8, 2001). The above facts of recognition are acknowledged.

arrow