logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산고등법원 2015.10.28 2015나52626
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following judgments as to the additional arguments that came into existence in this court. Therefore, it is acceptable to accept it as it is in accordance with the main

2. Determination on the additional argument

A. While discussing the issue of shareholders including the plaintiff and E, the defendant paid dividends to E as a share acquisition price, and the owner of the dividends to E upon the plaintiff's request, the purpose of the distribution was not for the plaintiff's own share, but for the plaintiff's own share, etc., and the plaintiff should complete the purchase of shares with dividends as dividends, since the amount was finally punished. The plaintiff's share of the plaintiff, which was paid to E with the purchase price of shares acquired by the defendant, is null and void as a false declaration of intent that the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff, although the defendant actually conspired with the plaintiff, and it is not against the good faith principle to claim the return of the share of the plaintiff's own share as a loan.

B. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiff is obligated to return the Plaintiff’s share in the purchase price of shares owned by E by the Defendant by lending KRW 224,922,908 to the Defendant, and there is no evidence to prove that the Defendant is a false declaration of intent in collusion with the above monetary loan contract, and there is no ground to view the Plaintiff’s act of seeking the return of the above loan as a violation of the good faith principle.

C. Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the judgment of the first instance is legitimate, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow