logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.08.25 2019가단57642
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 47,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from June 27, 2019 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

The defendant, around February 6, 2019, proposed to introduce a female employee who can work at an entertainment drinking house operated by the plaintiff to the plaintiff and want to do so, and the defendant must pay the pre-paid payment to the female employee. Thus, the defendant must pay the money to the defendant, and the defendant must pay the pre-paid payment to the female employee. However, the defendant did not have an intention to pay the pre-paid payment with the money received from the plaintiff. The defendant's horse was paid to the defendant as the sum of KRW 47,00,000 from February 8, 2019 to March 12, 2019 as shown in the attached Table, and the defendant used the money received from the plaintiff as personal debt repayment and living expenses, etc., and the defendant did not receive the above KRW 47,00,000 from the plaintiff to the defendant and the defendant received the above KRW 7,000 from the plaintiff, and the defendant cannot be acknowledged as a dispute between the parties to the criminal trial and the entire defendant's arguments (Article 2775,5,07).7

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 47,00,000 as damages for tort and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 27, 2019 to the date of full payment, upon the Plaintiff’s request.

Of the money received from the plaintiff, the defendant borrowed KRW 15,00,000 as stated in the table Nos. 4 attached hereto, and the remaining money was paid to the plaintiff as necessary for the introduction of female employees. However, it is not sufficient to recognize the above assertion solely on the basis of the statement Nos. 1 and 2. There is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow