logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.02.08 2017가합171
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. (1) The Defendant and C jointly operated the snick fish plantation with the trade name of “D” (hereinafter “instant aquaculture”), and borrowed KRW 255,312,00 from the Plaintiff the bid price of the instant aquaculture, KRW 192,719,715, and KRW 289,000,000, totaling KRW 737,031,715.

Therefore, the Defendant, as a co-operator of the instant aquaculture, is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the borrowed amount of KRW 737,031,715 and delay damages therefor.

(2) Even if the Defendant leased the name of the business operator of the instant aquaculture to C who is the husband, the Defendant is liable for the nominal name under Article 24 of the Commercial Act, and the Defendant is jointly and severally liable with C to repay the above borrowed amount to the Plaintiff.

(3) Meanwhile, C prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a written plan to repay the above loan (Evidence A24-2) with the Defendant, and the Defendant ratified the act of unauthorized Representation as above, and thus, C is liable to repay the above loan to the Plaintiff.

B. The actual operator of the instant aquaculture is C, and the Defendant is only the nominal lender who lent only the name of the business operator of the instant aquaculture to C.

On the other hand, the plaintiff is not obliged to pay the borrowed money to the plaintiff, because the defendant was well aware of the circumstance that the defendant is only the nominal lender as C's punishment.

2. Determination

A. We examine the judgment on the Plaintiff’s joint operator’s assertion of liability, and the evidence alone submitted by the Plaintiff is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff while jointly operating the instant aquaculture together with C, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this otherwise.

Therefore, we cannot accept this part of the plaintiff's argument.

B. (1) Determination of the Plaintiff’s assertion of liability as to the nominal holder (i) the nominal holder permits another person to operate his/her business, thereby allowing the other party to the transaction.

arrow