(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.08.13 2018나464

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.08.13 2018나464

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 1 (the establishment of a petition is recognized as having no dispute over the establishment of the petition), the Defendant, on January 26, 2009, prepared a loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff will borrow KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on June 25, 2010, and interest KRW 600,000 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. (1) On January 26, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant. (2) The Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff’s wife, the Plaintiff’s wife, who is not the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff, but the Plaintiff entered the Plaintiff’s name in the instant loan certificate only because C changed the Plaintiff’s name as the Plaintiff. The actual lender is C. The Plaintiff, the nominal lender, who is not the actual lender, cannot claim the Defendant for the loan of this case. (2) As long as the establishment of the disposal document is recognized to be authentic, the court should recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent as stated in the disposal document, unless there is any counter-proof that is obvious and acceptable. If there is any difference in the interpretation of the contract between the parties, and the interpretation of the intent of the parties as indicated in the disposal document is at issue, it should be reasonably interpreted in full view of the substance of the language, motive and purpose of the agreement, the objective to achieve the agreement, the parties’ genuine intent, etc. in accordance with logical and empirical rules.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2002Da6753 delivered on June 11, 2002, etc.). We examine this case in this case.

According to the above facts, since the defendant prepared the loan certificate of this case and delivered it to the plaintiff, the plaintiff can be deemed to have lent KRW 10 million to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 10 million, unless there are special circumstances.

On the other hand, the following 2-B

subsection (3) of this section.

참조판례

-대법원 2002. 6. 11. 선고 2002다6753 판결

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.04.27 2015나4032

-인천지방법원 2015.06.26 2014나17046

-의정부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나8924

-수원지방법원 2015.09.16 2014나44113

-서울고등법원 2014.11.26 2014나9009