(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.06 2018가단5136313

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.12.06 2018가단5136313

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 19, 2017, the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “In-house director”) with a view to 50,000,000 won as interest rate of 8% per annum and with the due date of repayment fixed on December 29, 2017, and paid 50,000 won to the Nonparty Company.

B. On February 26, 2018, the Plaintiff and C, the de facto manager of the Nonparty Company, entered into a monetary loan modification agreement (hereinafter “instant modification agreement”) with the content that the repayment period stipulated in the said monetary loan agreement was changed to March 18, 2018, and the delay interest rate was set at 24% per annum, and on the other hand, the Plaintiff may enforce a compulsory execution against the Defendant’s property where the loan is not repaid even after the lapse of 30 days from the changed repayment date.

C. On March 19, 2018, Nonparty Company paid only KRW 15,000,000 out of the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 Evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay 39,97,260 won the remainder of the principal and interest of the loan to the plaintiff according to the instant modified contract.

B. According to the above facts, the plaintiff may enforce compulsory execution against the defendant's property if the non-party company did not repay the loan in the modified contract of this case.

However, the instant modified contract is concluded between the Plaintiff and the non-party company. The mere fact that the Defendant is an internal director of the non-party company does not necessarily mean that the instant modified contract has an effect on the Defendant. There is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant modified contract has an effect on the Defendant.

Therefore, we cannot accept the Plaintiff’s above assertion that the validity of the instant modified contract is premised on the infringement against the Defendant.

3. The plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.19 2015가단43439

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.14 2018가단2010

-광주지방법원 2017.03.10 2016가단8201

-광주지방법원 2018.08.07 2018노282

-서울남부지방법원 2017.05.19 2016가단256597