logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.08.14 2018가단144190
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 11, 2008, the Plaintiff’s husband B engaged in a monetary lending business in the name of “E” in Ulsan-gu, Ulsan-gu, Seoul-gu, and the above B moved the place of business from “E” to “E” in the name of “E” in the name of “E” on July 16, 2009.

The name of E was the plaintiff, but the actual employer was B.

B. The Defendant’s father G issued promissory notes in the course of managing H, and only some subcontractors received discount from B, and then H was treated as default.

Some of the above Promissory Notes were endorsed in the capacity of an individual.

C. On December 30, 2008, H and G Co., Ltd. and “H and G” drafted a written agreement stating that “The Plaintiff, the debtor, and H and G” are limited to the Plaintiff’s pecuniary loss incurred after the commencement of composition 2005 U.S. District Court Decision 2005 U.S. 4. As of February 4, 2009, the total amount of credit as of February 4, 2009 is KRW 181,168,000, and they agree to the amount of credit in KRW 100 million. The Plaintiff waives all rights to H and G with respect to the remainder other than the above KRW 100,000.

The amount of money borrowed: The redemption date of KRW 100 million: Before the redemption on February 4, 2009: The redemption before maturity on February 4, 2009 shall be made without any objection if the creditor is deemed unstable even before the redemption date.

Obligor: Defendant Address: The 4th issue date of Ulsan-gu I, Ulsan-gu: December 30, 2008: Plaintiff

D. On December 30, 2008, the Defendant prepared and delivered to B a certificate of borrowing the following contents (hereinafter “the certificate of borrowing”).

【In the absence of dispute, each entry number of Gap’s evidence 1 through 5, and 7 is included, and the defendant asserts that the part of the defendant’s signature was forged among Gap’s evidence 1, Gap’s evidence 3-1, and Eul’s evidence 2, but the result of the appraiser’s written appraisal by the appraiserJ, Gap’s evidence 2 and Nos. 4-1 through 9 and all pleadings are all recorded.

arrow