logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.05.15 2018가합103369
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 236,940,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 15, 2018 to June 7, 2018.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 705,280,00 on several occasions from September 2017 to March 13, 2018 to the Defendant without having set interest and maturity for payment. The Defendant repaid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 468,340,000 out of the above money to the Plaintiff from March 31, 2018; the Plaintiff paid the Plaintiff a total of KRW 236,940,000 (= KRW 705,280,000 - KRW 468,340,000) with the content certification to the Defendant on May 4, 2018 (i.e., KRW 705,280,340,000) to the Defendant, or there is no dispute between the parties, or the purport of the order to provide financial transaction information as a whole, and (ii) the Plaintiff’s submission of the entire statement to the Plaintiff from each of the financial institutions is exempt from the Defendant’s pleading.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 236,940,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) or the loan amount of KRW 236,940,00,00 (hereinafter “the instant loan loan”) and delay damages therefrom, barring special circumstances.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted one of the grounds for the claim for illegal consideration is a person who receives a certain percentage of the selling money or receives money from the user with money for gambling and receives interest at a rate of 40% per month, in the event that he/she loses money from the user as a public relations policy for the illegal gambling site.

The loan of this case also is the money that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant for gambling purposes. The Plaintiff was well aware of such circumstances, as well as the Plaintiff had induced the Defendant to gambling, so the loan of this case is null and void in violation of good morals and other social order. Accordingly, the loan of this case constitutes illegal consideration and thus, is returned.

arrow