(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.01.31 2017가단205244

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.01.31 2017가단205244

보증채무금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff 50 million won with 15% interest per annum from February 24, 2017 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), evidence Nos. 2, and witness C’s testimony (excluding the portion not trusted in the following) as to the cause of the Plaintiff’s claim: (a) as of March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff loaned money several times from around 2015 to C; and (b) as of March 18, 2016, the Plaintiff guaranteed the Plaintiff’s repayment obligation of KRW 50 million (hereinafter “Defendant’s guarantee obligation”).

The circumstances alleged by the Defendant as to this issue (such as: (a) the Defendant prepared a supplement to some of the loan certificates written in the same vice language as at the time; (b) the Plaintiff’s home at the time prepared and delivered the loan certificates without thought at C’s request from three males and two side members of C; and (c) the Defendant was unaware of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff did not directly borrow money from the Plaintiff) may not affect the recognition of the Defendant’s guarantee.

Therefore, as a matter of principle, the defendant is obliged to pay 50 million won the guaranteed debt to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts to the effect that, as the plaintiff loaned gambling money to C in the position of the recipient of gambling funds (hereinafter referred to as "tts"), C's obligation to repay loans, which is the principal obligation, is null and void.

However, in addition to “C uses the money borrowed from the Plaintiff as gambling fund,” the following facts: (a) Party B’s 1-4 of evidence No. 1 and witness C’s partial testimony (the purport that KRW 70 million was borrowed as gambling fund) appears to correspond to “the fact that at least part of the Plaintiff’s loan was made in the name of gambling fund”; and (b) all of the Defendant’s interests are the same as the Defendant, or for the purpose of reducing or exempting his/her liability, those who need to invoke this part of the claim cannot be trusted as the Plaintiff’s statement lacking concreteness, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this differently.

Therefore, this is applicable.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.24 2018가합31613

-부산지방법원동부지원 2019.04.18 2018가단1744

-광주지방법원 2017.07.11 2016가단515952

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.19 2016가단57701

-수원지방법원 2015.11.13 2015나4167