(영문) 춘천지방법원 2018.10.17 2017나1985 | 리걸엔진

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) 춘천지방법원 2018.10.17 2017나1985

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is a person running a stock company C (hereinafter “foreign company”), and the Defendant served as a business employee of the non-party company and retired from the company around July 2013.

B. On October 30, 2012, the Defendant drafted the instant loan certificate stating that “The amount of KRW 1,430,000,000 (hereinafter “the instant amount”) that was deposited at a trader and used by the Defendant without depositing in the non-party company, and the total amount of KRW 1,392,00 borrowed from the non-party company (hereinafter “the instant loan amount”) shall be KRW 2,82,000,000, which shall be repaid to the non-party company, including the loan amount, and shall be repaid in 30,000 won each month from November 30 to the 30th day of each month.”

【Ground for Recognition: Entry of Evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings】

2. Based on the loan certificate of this case, the Plaintiff seek payment of KRW 2,822,00 and damages for delay against the Defendant.

However, as seen earlier, the loan certificate of this case purports that the defendant would repay the above amount to the non-party company, and the repayment amount also concerns the amount of transaction deposits that the defendant made while working as an employee of the non-party company and the amount borrowed from the non-party company.

(A) The Plaintiff’s representative director or controlling shareholder of the non-party company does not directly exercise the Plaintiff’s right as a creditor with respect to the money that the non-party company is obligated to pay. There is no evidence suggesting that the Defendant agreed to repay the said money to the non-party company, instead of the non-party company.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion cannot be accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim of this case in conclusion must be dismissed as there is no reasonable ground.

In conclusion, the first instance judgment, unlike this, is unfair, and thus, the defendant's appeal is accepted and revoked, and the plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단2559

-서울남부지방법원 2016.11.24 2016나4407

-광주지방법원 2019.05.02 2018나61931

-대법원 1995. 8. 25. 선고 95다20904 판결

-부산지방법원 2016.02.04 2014가단100845