(영문) 인천지방법원 2017.06.15 2016가단241880

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) 인천지방법원 2017.06.15 2016가단241880

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 38,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from October 1, 2016 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. As to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Defendant borrowed KRW 38 million from the Plaintiff, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the said money to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendant received the donation, thus, the Plaintiff’s claim cannot be complied with.

B. Around May 2016, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant working in Bupyeong-gu Incheon Metropolitan Government Dda, and thereafter developed the gap. (2) On June 2, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 3,000,000 to the Defendant’s bank account, KRW 25,000,000 on June 7, 2016, and KRW 38,000,000,000 on June 28, 2016.

3) On July 10, 2016, the Defendant prepared and issued a cash custody certificate to the effect that “I will confirm the cash custody at the time of receiving KRW 38,00,000 from the Plaintiff” (it is stated that the preparation date is July 10, 2018, but it is deemed to be a clerical error). [The written evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 1, 1, 2, and 1, as the basis for recognition, and the purport of the entire pleadings.”

C. The judgment of the court below is that the defendant prepared the above cash custody certificate and thus borrowed KRW 38,00,000 from the plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from October 1, 2016 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

2. As to the defendant's argument

A. The payment of money on the condition of the non-performance of the assertion (sexual relation) is null and void as an anti-social juristic act, and cannot be claimed as illegal consideration.

B. It is not sufficient to recognize that the respective descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 3 of the judgment Nos. 1 and 3 alone paid money on the condition of inhumanism or sexual traffic, and there is no

(No evidence that the plaintiff and the defendant are the deceased's spouse exists). Therefore, the above argument is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.05.02 2017가단19329

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.03.29 2015가단24795

-제주지방법원 2016.09.27 2016가단6858

-대전지방법원 2016.08.30 2016가단203947

-광주지방법원장흥지원 2020.12.09 2020가단415