(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017나21093

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.10.25 2017나21093

대여금

Text

1. The appeal by the defendant (appointed party) is dismissed;

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the defendant (appointed party).

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the court's explanation concerning this case is as follows: "A No. 7 (including a provisional number)" in Part II, No. 4 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "A around March 9, 2007," and "No. 7 (including a provisional number)" in Part IV, No. 9 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be deemed as "No. 7 (including a provisional number), and the defendant shall be deemed as having no effect since the evidence No. 7 was prepared by D's coercion; however, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's assertion is without merit)." The defendant's argument in the trial of the court of first instance is as stated in the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance except for the following additional decision as to the defendant's argument at the court of first instance. Thus, it shall be cited as it is in accordance with the main sentence of

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant asserts that the loan of this case is lent to the defendant, and the plaintiff is merely the owner of the loan or his agent, and since the appointed party C is not the party, the certificate of this case where the plaintiff is the creditor and the appointed party C is the debtor, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant and the appointed party C shall be dismissed or dismissed.

However, as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by this court, it is reasonable to view that the loan of this case was lent by the plaintiff to the defendant through D, and that the defendant and the selected party C reached an agreement by settling the loan amount of KRW 200 million in total at the plaintiff's future around March 9, 2007 and lending it to the selected party C under the defendant's joint and several sureties. The evidence submitted by the defendant at the court of first instance and the trial alone is insufficient to reverse the above fact-finding, and therefore, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

B. The Defendant asserts to the effect that the instant loan was fully repaid or the settlement of set-off was completed to D, who is a quasi-Possessor of the claim due to the payment in kind as provided in I 602 and 702 in Gangdong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government, and the transfer of the claim as of June 20, 2008.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.13 2014가단89469

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2018.05.29 2017가단102813

-서울고등법원 2019.06.26 2018나2049414

-서울고등법원 2018.05.31 2016나2084451

-서울고등법원 2016.02.05 2015나12002