(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나50562

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) 서울남부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나50562

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The defendant is the plaintiff's letter of cash payment with the purport that "31 million won, the repayment amount of which is paid from the plaintiff by August 16, 2002, and 150,000 won in cash on the second day of each month," and "each of the instant notes".

B) The Defendant prepared and delivered the Plaintiff. From September 4, 2002 to December 14, 2017, the Defendant remitted the Plaintiff KRW 6,700,000 to the sum of KRW 100,000 to KRW 20,000 per month. [In the absence of dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in subparagraphs A and 2, and the purport of the entire pleadings.]

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 31 million and the agreed amount of KRW 31 million from September 2, 2002 to the date of full payment. It is also obligated to pay the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 6.7 million from September 2, 2002 to May 2, 2006 to the agreed amount of KRW 6.75 million from September 2, 2002 to the agreed amount of KRW 6.75 million from September 2, 206 (i.e., KRW 1.., KRW 1.55 million) to the agreed amount of KRW 31 million and its amount of KRW 31 million from the following day to May 3, 2006 to the date of full payment. The defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 1.5 million from May 3, 2006 to the date of full payment of the agreed amount of KRW 1.584 million from the following day of the claim.

3. The judgment of the defendant's assertion is 1.5 million won or more, but there is no doubt that the defendant's actual obligation against the plaintiff was obstructed by the defendant, and there is no awareness that the defendant's order of delivery was sealed in the police station corridor. Thus, even if the plaintiff's coercion and request was not made, the letter of this case is prepared formally as requested by the plaintiff, and thus, it is effective as it constitutes a false declaration of intention or a false declaration of conspiracy.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2020.01.09 2019나50562

-부산고등법원 2014.12.04 2014나50029

-인천지방법원 2019.07.04 2017가단251259

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.11 2014가합534829

-전주지방법원 2013.05.24 2013나129