logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.08.29 2016가단8775
대여금
Text

1. Defendant C Co., Ltd. shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,00 and 25% per annum from May 6, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2, 2016, the Plaintiff leased Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”) KRW 30,000,000 on March 2, 2016, and KRW 20,000,000 on the same month, and KRW 50,00,000 on a yearly interest rate, and the due date on March 2, 2017.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

Defendant C repaid KRW 2,170,000 to the Plaintiff on April 5, 2016 as interest accrued until May 5, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence No. 4, purport of whole pleadings

2. If so, barring any special circumstance, Defendant C is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated by applying the rate of 25% per annum from May 6, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the date of final interest payment, to the day of full payment.

3. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. Defendant B agreed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff that Defendant C would repay the instant loan obligations on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Since Defendant B conspired with Nonparty D, the representative director of Defendant C, obtained the instant loan from the Plaintiff, Defendant B is obligated to compensate the Plaintiff for the damages (the instant loan).

B. The evidence presented by the Plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge each of the above alleged facts, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

① The Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B agreed to repay the instant loan on behalf of Defendant C, as well as the Plaintiff’s assertion that Defendant B obtained the instant loan in collusion with Nonparty D, on the following grounds: (a) there was an indictment against the intent that Defendant B acquired the instant loan through a joint network with Nonparty D; and (b) the fact that the money had been paid to the Plaintiff via the Defendant B’s account that there was an error of transaction between Nonparty D and Defendant B; and (c) the circumstance that Defendant B agreed to pay interest of KRW 2,170,000 as seen earlier to the Plaintiff through the Defendant B’s account.

arrow