logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.09.27 2018나88180
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

The defendant's grounds for appeal citing the judgment of the court of first instance are not significantly different from the argument in the court of first instance, and even if the evidence submitted in the court of first instance shows the evidence submitted in the court of first instance, the fact-finding and judgment of the court of first instance

The reasoning of the judgment of this court is as follows, given that the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as that of the judgment of the court of first instance, it shall be accepted in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act. The part of the judgment after dismissal shall be dismissed into “D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”)” in the second 19 line of the judgment of the court of first instance.

The third five pages of the judgment of the court of first instance stated "A No. 3" as "A evidence, Gap evidence No. 1, 2-1, 2-2, and 3, part of the witness H of this court, and fact-finding about E Co., Ltd.".

The following shall be added to the third 13 lines of the judgment of the first instance.

④ From November 28, 2013 to July 2, 2014, the Defendant prepared a certificate of respective loans worth KRW 165 million for the Plaintiff’s total loans on three occasions. However, it was true that D is registered as a collaborative company of E Company on November 1, 2013, prior to the date on which each of the above loans was drawn up; ⑤ the witness H of this court decided that the Defendant would register D as a collaborative company of E Company 1 by borrowing the above loans from the Plaintiff, and that the Defendant would register D as a collaborative company of E Company 1. However, if D is entering into a material purchase contract with the Plaintiff at the time, there is no memory explicitly agreed to repay the said loans with its profits.

It is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all participating Justices, on the ground that the defendant's appeal was without merit.

arrow