(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.10.12 2017나51075

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) 수원지방법원 2017.10.12 2017나51075

대여금

Text

1. The defendants' appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

Purport of claim and appeal

(b).

Reasons

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the Plaintiff determined and lent KRW 20 million to Defendant C on or around February 2009 as of June 30, 2012 and determined damages for delay as 2% per month, and the fact that Defendant B jointly and severally guaranteed this can be acknowledged.

Therefore, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million with 24% interest per annum from July 1, 2012 to the date of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendants' assertion

A. The Defendants asserted that they constituted a cash custody certificate of No. 1 for the sake of securing the payment of the fraternity, upon the Plaintiff’s request, the owner of the fraternity to which Defendant C belongs. The Defendants paid the fraternity over 41 times thereafter, thereby repaying all the secured obligations.

B. There is no dispute over the fact that the Defendants paid KRW 10,930,60 to the Plaintiff from May 4, 2009 to February 28, 2012.

However, according to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 2 through 4, it can be recognized that the defendant C respectively borrowed the amount of KRW 15 million from the plaintiff as of April 10, 2008, and KRW 4 million as of November 7, 2008, and KRW 17 million as of April 10, 2010 (hereinafter "existing loans"), and there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid KRW 10,930,6 million to the defendant, and it was designated as appropriated for the repayment of the debt of this case, and since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant designated that it was appropriated for the repayment of the debt of this case, the amount paid by the defendant was fully appropriated for each existing loan obligation that comes earlier than the debt of this case.

Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is difficult to accept.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the court of first instance is just, and the defendants' appeal is dismissed.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.04 2015가합505521

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.12.28 2016가단24253

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.13 2016가합1855

-부산지방법원 2017.05.12 2016나41200

-창원지방법원 2015.11.18 2015노2097