logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가단134765
약정금 및 배당금
Text

1. Defendant B’s KRW 14,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from May 26, 2011 to October 16, 2015, respectively, to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination on the claim for loans made on October 18, 2010

A. On October 18, 2010, the Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant C (hereinafter “C”) lent KRW 20,000,000 to Defendant C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant C”), and Defendant B provided joint and several surety for the above loan obligations of Defendant C. The Defendants seek the remainder of the amount calculated by deducting KRW 6,00,000,000 from the above loan amount of KRW 20,000.

As to this, Defendant B asserted that it was merely the Plaintiff’s arranging to lend money to Defendant C, and that Defendant C was invested in the above money from Defendant B, not by borrowing the above money from the Plaintiff, and that it was not possible to accept the Plaintiff’s claim.

B. On October 18, 2010, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 20,000,000 to the account under Defendant C’s name at Defendant B’s request to deposit KRW 20,000,000 in the account under Defendant C’s name.

B) Upon receipt of a claim that Defendant B was unable to receive the above money from the Plaintiff, on April 19, 201, Defendant B prepared a loan certificate with the purport that “I will repay the said money to the Plaintiff until May 25, 2011.” [Grounds for recognition] There is no dispute, as seen in the above facts of recognition, the Plaintiff remitted money to the Plaintiff at the request of the Defendant B, and eventually Defendant B drafted a loan certificate. Considering the fact that Defendant B transferred the money to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to deem that the Plaintiff agreed to pay the above KRW 20,500,000 to the Plaintiff and that I would have agreed to have the nature of the money borrowed as the borrowed money.

Therefore, Defendant B is the date of this decision where it is deemed reasonable for Defendant B to dispute the existence and scope of the entire obligation of this case from May 26, 2011, which is the day following the due date of the agreement, after deducting KRW 6,000,000 from the remaining KRW 14,000,000, which was paid by the Plaintiff to the Plaintiff.

arrow