logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.14 2014가합557518
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 123,60,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 12% per annum from June 14, 2014 to November 6, 2014;

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The defendant is a dentist as a wife of C.

B. Upon C’s request on December 11, 2012, the Plaintiff paid 1% interest on the borrowed amount by the Defendant, and received a certificate of borrowing from February 11, 2013 that the principal would be repaid in three months each month from February 11, 2013, and lent KRW 120 million to the Defendant.

C. On February 11, 2013, C had KRW 100 million in order to repay the above loan, and C again brought KRW 100 million upon the Plaintiff’s permission.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) brought about KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff’s assertion, but the Plaintiff had extended the due date for the Plaintiff to believe the Defendant’s credit. However, from June 2014, the Defendant promised to pay the principal amount in the amount of KRW 20 million each month from June 13, 2014, and did not pay the principal amount and the remainder interest. Accordingly, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the principal amount of KRW 120 million, interest thereon, and delay damages. (ii) The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant gave KRW 120 million to the Plaintiff to pay the Plaintiff the loan obligation to the Plaintiff.

However, C borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff by requesting the Plaintiff to lend money necessary to establish a social company after having repaid KRW 100 million. As such, C borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, the obligor who borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff is not the Defendant, but C, and the Defendant is only paid KRW 20 million of the principal remaining to the Plaintiff.

B. The key issue of the instant case was whether C brought about KRW 100 million on February 11, 2013, but whether C extended the due date from the Plaintiff and brought back again, and whether C subsequently borrowed KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff after the Defendant repaid the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff.

arrow