(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.01.20 2014가합9639

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.01.20 2014가합9639

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 21, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 120 million to C with interest rate of KRW 2.5% (3% per month in arrears) and the due date of payment on May 20, 2011 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On February 21, 2011, the Plaintiff entered into a mortgage agreement with C, the mortgagee of the right to collateral security, and the maximum debt amount of KRW 180 million with respect to each real estate indicated in the separate sheet, and completed the establishment registration of the neighboring mortgage.

C. On June 23, 201, August 19, 2011, and September 7, 2011, respectively, the Defendant paid KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff by means of remitting KRW 1,00,000 to the account in the name of D introducing C, as interest for the above loan.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff actually used the instant loan, and agreed with C to accept the instant loan obligations, and notified D of the agreement, and paid the amount corresponding to the interest on the instant loan.

Inasmuch as the Plaintiff agreed to assume the above obligation by receiving the interest that was paid from the Defendant after having previously heard the fact that the Defendant assumed the obligation from D, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the principal and interest of the loan obligation as the underwriter of the instant loan obligation.

B. (1) The plaintiff's assertion (1) continues to file a lawsuit against the defendant who is not related to this case against the defendant, and gives material and mental damage to the defendant. The plaintiff's filing of the lawsuit in this case is unlawful as it constitutes abuse of right

(2) The Defendant did not accept the instant loan obligations.

Since the Defendant borrowed money from C, the interest of the instant loan, which C is obligated to pay, was temporarily paid by the Defendant, and the interest was paid due to the Defendant’s acceptance of the instant loan obligations.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.02.17 2015나9712

-인천지방법원 2018.02.02 2017가단29766

-수원지방법원안양지원 2016.01.20 2014가단108636

-의정부지방법원 2015.04.29 2015가합1076

-부산지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가합42583