(영문) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.04.29 2013가단1237

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) 창원지방법원밀양지원 2015.04.29 2013가단1237

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion D, around March 23, 2010, extended the amount of KRW 30,000,00 to the Defendants as real estate brokerage fees, etc., and the Plaintiff’s claim for KRW 30,000,00 to the Plaintiff is entitled to receive payment at that time when E forest and field (hereinafter “the instant forest and field”) was purchased and sold, but if the Plaintiff borrowed money to the Plaintiff, it is necessary to pay the money, the Defendants would have to pay the Plaintiff more than five months thereafter. If the Plaintiff extended KRW 30,00,00 to D and Defendant C or Defendant C, the Defendants were confirmed to jointly pay the amount of KRW 30,00,00 to D, and the Defendants were paid KRW 30,00,00 in the name of the Defendants. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed with the Plaintiff to pay the above amount of KRW 30,000,000 and delay damages therefrom.

2. Defendant C’s assertion that D will borrow money from the Plaintiff, and that D will pay 30,000,000,000 won to the Plaintiff when it mediates the sale and purchase of the forest land of this case, Defendant C’s assertion that D will make and request the Plaintiff to prepare a statement of payment in the name of Defendant B and divide D’s seal into two copies of payment (which is different from No. 1-2, No. 1-1-2, No. 1-1-2, No. 1-2, and other documents) that D would bring. At that time, the Plaintiff did not appear at that time, and it was completed the registration of transfer of ownership in the name of Defendant C, the actual owner of the forest land of this case, because D was unable to mediate the sale and purchase of the forest of this case. Defendant B did not have any obligation to pay the said money.

Furthermore, Defendant C did not have jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of Defendant C based on the above payment memorandum, and the part in the name of Defendant C among the above payment memorandum was forged.

3. The determination of the claim against Defendant B, and the interpretation of the declaration of intention clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have granted to the display act, and the content of any contract is written between the parties to the contract.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.12.16 2015나4294

-부산지방법원 2015.01.22 2013가단59063

-대전지방법원 홍성지원 2013.11.20 2013고단299

-대전지방법원 서산지원 2018.04.24 2017가단55096

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2013.11.29 2013고단965