logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.15 2015가합26516
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 15, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

The Plaintiff, around 2004, established a corporation with Defendant and C (hereinafter referred to as “D”) and decided to sell health auxiliary food, and decided to invest the said D’s establishment and operation fund.

Accordingly, the Plaintiff invested approximately KRW 1,200,000 between October 2004 and May 2005, and at the time of the investment, the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation to return the above investment amount of KRW 1,20,000.

However, around 205, the Plaintiff settled the above business with C and the Defendant.

On December 23, 2005, the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 900,00,000 for the settlement of accounts following the said liquidation (hereinafter “instant settlement agreement”); on the same day; (1) “30,000,000 for the borrowed principal”; (2) “30,000,000 for the borrowed principal”; (3) “30,000,000 for the due date”; and (3) “31, 2006 for the repayment period”; (2) “300,000,000 for the borrowed principal”; and (3) “30,000,000 for the borrowed principal”; and (4) “the due date for repayment” respectively.

【In accordance with the facts of the above recognition of the purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) and the entire pleadings, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 15, 2015 to the date following the date on which the copy of the complaint of this case sought by the Plaintiff was served to the Defendant after the maturity of the contract amount under the settlement agreement of this case.

The defendant's assertion that the defendant worked as a staff member of D, while the loan certificate No. 1 is actually made by D with investment from the plaintiff, and it is merely made by the plaintiff's own name at the plaintiff's request. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

The defendant shall enter into the settlement agreement of this case for the defendant.

arrow