(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.02.06 2017가단212230

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) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.02.06 2017가단212230

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay KRW 10 million to the Plaintiff the annual interest rate of KRW 15% from June 22, 2017 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On December 2, 2016, the Plaintiff lent KRW 100 million to C, who is the Defendant’s husband, and at the time, the Plaintiff was drafted with the borrower C as C (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”). The Plaintiff was drafted with the borrower as C. A’s certificate No. 1-1.

B. After that, around May 2017, the Defendant stated his name in the borrower’s book of the instant loan certificate, signed it, and delivered it to the Plaintiff.

A CFD / [based ground for recognition] without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 to 4 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts and the grounds for recognition as to the Plaintiff’s claim, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant expressed the Plaintiff’s intent to repay the loan together with C, inasmuch as the Defendant stated his name in the loan borrowing column and signed, even though the person who actually borrowed money, as alleged by the Defendant, is the husband of the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100 million and the amount of damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 22, 2017 to the date of full payment after the instant complaint was served on the Defendant.

B. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant's signing of the loan certificate of this case with the defendant was aimed at comprehensively arranging the relationship between the claim and the claim that existed before while the plaintiff decided to purchase the defendant's horse riding club ownership, which is the representative of the plaintiff, and since the horse riding club acquisition was no longer made, the defendant is not obliged to perform the obligation under the loan certificate of this case.

(2) The plaintiff's claim for a loan is not acceptable because the plaintiff's claim for a loan is more than the loan claimed by the plaintiff, which the plaintiff bears against the defendant who is a lessor as a tenant.

First of all, the defendant's loan certificate of this case.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2018.10.31 2018나57513

-서울동부지방법원 2019.07.05 2018나1744

-수원지방법원 2015.12.03 2015가단44362

-광주지방법원 2017.11.01 2017나51296

-대전지방법원 논산지원 2017.01.12 2016가단2881