(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단5121645

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.12 2016가단5121645

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 126,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 9, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The facts below the facts of recognition do not conflict between the parties, or may be admitted in full view of the whole purport of the pleadings in each entry of Gap evidence of Nos. 1 to 3 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), and there is no counter-proof.

The Plaintiff paid KRW 26 million to the Defendant on September 10, 2013, KRW 70 million on October 17, 2013, KRW 5 million on which the Defendant was proceeding, KRW 15 million on November 28, 2013, KRW 30 million on December 29, 2013, KRW 31,30 million on December 31, 2013, KRW 30 million on January 9, 2014, KRW 30 million on January 9, 2014, KRW 70 million on January 9, 2014, KRW 60 million on January 28, 2014, KRW 200,000 on September 1, 2014, KRW 307,00 on June 19, 2014, KRW 200,000 on June 29, 2014.

B. Around April 2014, the Defendant determined the amount paid by the Plaintiff between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff as KRW 200 million, and the Defendant: (a) made up a payment note stating that the Plaintiff partially returned the amount of KRW 200 million that it received to the Defendant on September 1, 2014 and that it would complete the payment by the end of the month of early 2014 (hereinafter “instant payment note”).

The contents are as follows:

I, at the latest by the end of September 2014, note B, in connection with the Chinese business, that the KRW 200,000 deposited by you shall be returned in the first order of September 2014 and, at the latest, shall be paid in full.

C. The Plaintiff was paid KRW 74,00,000 by the Defendant after preparing the instant payment note with the Defendant.

2. As long as the establishment of a judgment-making document on the cause of a claim is recognized to be genuine, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the relevant disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents of the statement. In a case where there is any difference between the parties regarding the interpretation of a contract, and the interpretation of the intent of the parties expressed in the disposition document is at issue, the text, the motive and background of the agreement, and

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.24 2017가단58763

-전주지방법원 2019.10.24 2018나4782

-서울동부지방법원 2015.10.16 2014가합12315

-서울동부지방법원 2016.10.11 2013가합103573

-인천지방법원 2020.03.27 2019가단7067