(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.06.02 2015가단2852

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2015.06.02 2015가단2852

대여금

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 30,000,000 and KRW 25,000 among them, the Defendant shall start on December 25, 2014, and the remainder of KRW 5,000.

Reasons

The Defendant decided to borrow KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff on October 16, 2008, but prepared and delivered a loan certificate to the effect that it takes effect at the time of deposit into the bank account in the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), the Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 30,000 to the bank account in the name of the Defendant on October 17, 2008, and the Defendant remitted total of KRW 5,000,000 to the Plaintiff on seven occasions under the name of interest for KRW 30,000 from October 18, 2008 to February 20, 2009, may be recognized by taking into account the following facts: there is no dispute between the parties, or the entire purport of the pleadings set forth in subparagraphs A, 1, 2, and 4.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 25,00,000 won from December 25, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, and to pay the remaining 5,000,000 won from April 8, 2015, which is the day following the delivery date of the application for amendment of the claim of this case to the day of complete payment, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as stipulated by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 8, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

In regard to this, the defendant asserts that 30,000,000 won, which the plaintiff delivered to the defendant, is not a loan, but an investment loan. The loan certificate of this case is formally based upon the plaintiff's request, and it cannot be deemed that the defendant has a debt for the prohibition of loan. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

The defendant's above assertion is not accepted.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case shall be accepted on the grounds of its reasoning, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.10 2017나15750

-부산지방법원동부지원 2016.11.24 2016가단15725

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.09.11 2015가단106365

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.09.28 2016가단492 (1)

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.29 2016가합52156