(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.05.29 2019가단130747

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) 서울동부지방법원 2020.05.29 2019가단130747

지불이행각서금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 100 million to the network C on several occasions, and C promised to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff when receiving dividends in the auction case [Songsan Branch D and E (Dupl) of the Daejeon District Court Branch D and double). In addition, C, around April 3, 2017, entered the Defendant’s name and affixed the seal affixed to the Defendant on the back of the statement of non-performance containing the following contents (hereinafter “instant statement of performance”). The fact that the Plaintiff delivered it to the Plaintiff is not a dispute between the parties, or that it is recognized by considering the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1.

In the case of failure: B debtor, F Co., Ltd., the third debtor: The amount of credit in the Republic of Korea: 500,691,300 won between the above parties, the amount of credit in the case of seizure and assignment order between the above parties, shall be paid in the amount of KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000 won, respectively.

(S) On February 2, 200, the plaintiff asserted that the defendant agreed to deliver and deliver the letter of performance of this case to the plaintiff under the name of the defendant, or delegated his authority to do so, and that he promised to pay 150 million won to the plaintiff several times. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay the above money to the plaintiff, the defendant delegated the right to prepare the letter of performance under the name of the defendant to C.

There is no agreement to make the Plaintiff’s preparation and there is no promise to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff via it, and even if so, there is such a fact.

Even if there is no money collected through the seizure and assignment order stated in the instant performance memorandum, and thus, the Plaintiff cannot respond to the Plaintiff’s claim.

3. Therefore, C is the case from the Defendant only with the descriptions of health room, Gap evidence 5 and testimony of witness G.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원순천지원 2015.08.19 2014가단5825

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.12 2015가단140095

-인천지방법원 2019.08.21 2019가단204257

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.06.12 2019가단5307129

-대전지방법원 2018.11.30 2017가단15567