본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.03.23 2017가단8538

1. The Defendant’s KRW 30,000,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual interest from March 16, 2010 to March 23, 2018.


1. Facts of premise;

A. On October 30, 2009, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant on November 2009, and KRW 26,000,000 on November 20, 209, and KRW 21,00,000 on December 31, 2009. On December 31, 2009, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff each of the following documents (hereinafter “each of the instant documents”).

On or before December 31, 2009, the Defendant promised to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 10,000,000,000 for the borrowed amount of KRW 30,000 to the Plaintiff out of the C Corporation’s profit, and to pay the principal and KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff up to March 15, 2010.

B. On the other hand, around July 14, 2010 between the Plaintiff and D and E, a documentary loan certificate (hereinafter “ separate loan certificate”) was drawn up between the Plaintiff and D and E to the effect that “a loan of KRW 60,000,000 from the Plaintiff is made with respect to the Capital Corporation in the Mine-si, and the repayment is made until October 30, 2010.”

C. On February 23, 2017, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against D and E seeking loans amounting to KRW 60,000,000,000 with this court’s 2016Gadan41620, and concluded mediation to the effect that “D shall pay all principal and interest to the Plaintiff, but shall be exempted from the remainder if it pays KRW 30,00,000,000.”

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 3, 5, 6 evidence, Eul 1, 4 evidence, Eul 7-1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff asserts that he lent KRW 60,000 to the defendant.

The defendant asserted that D and E borrowed money, and that the letter of this case was prepared by demanding D, etc. not to lend money of KRW 30,000,000 to the second person without giving notice of the drawing up of the letter, and that each of the above forms was agreed to be null and void as the separate letter of loan was drawn up.

B. As long as the Defendant contests the cause of receiving and receiving money, it is necessary to prove that the Defendant’s ground of receiving and receiving money is a loan for consumption and consumption of money.

(See Supreme Court Decision 72Da221 delivered on December 12, 1972). However, among the principal and interest sought by the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s assertion is recognized as to the remainder exceeding KRW 30,000,000 as indicated in the instant respective text from the premise facts.