(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.11 2017나2052284

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) 서울고등법원 2018.01.11 2017나2052284

차용금

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance, including a claim that the Plaintiff reduced and changed on an exchange basis in this court.

Reasons

1. Summary of the plaintiff's assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s loan claim is attached to the Defendant from November 24, 2006 to September 13, 2010.

1. A total of KRW 303,350,000 was lent over 19 times, such as the entry Nos. 1 through 19.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay the above loan and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

B. The Plaintiff and the Defendant invested 1/2 of the purchase fund each around July 2008, and thereby, the Eunpyeong-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Apartment No. 720 (hereinafter “instant apartment”).

(1) The Defendant agreed to purchase the instant apartment in the name of the father D, the father of the Defendant, at the Defendant’s request (hereinafter “instant joint investment agreement”).

The plaintiff, accordingly, attached to the defendant from July 10, 2008 to November 11, 2008.

2. A total of KRW 152,400,000 as stated was paid.

On the other hand, with regard to the apartment of this case, the defendant paid the purchase fund to the defendant according to the joint investment agreement of this case with the debtor, the above D as the person who created the right to collateral security and the borrowed money to the financial institution.

However, the Plaintiff’s attachment on August 19, 2014

1. As indicated in No. 20, 152,125,041 won was disbursed, and the principal and interest of the loan was repaid under the name of the defendant;

Ultimately, the Plaintiff was liable for most of the purchase funds of the apartment of this case (304,525,041 won = 152,40,000 won = 152,125,041 won). The Defendant did not perform its duty of investment under the joint investment agreement of this case.

2) Accordingly, on May 19, 2016, the Plaintiff notified the Defendant to perform the investment obligation under the instant joint investment agreement with the content-certified mail (Evidence A No. 15), and even if so, the Defendant’s failure to perform the said obligation, the Plaintiff rescinded the instant joint investment agreement by serving a preparatory document as of November 6, 2017 on the part of the Defendant.

Therefore, the Defendant’s rescission of the instant joint investment agreement to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.08.14 2019가단39490

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.04.15 2014가합4583

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2018.11.01 2018가합98

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.19 2013가합21500

-춘천지방법원 2018.11.22 2018가단1684