(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.05.04 2017가단18111

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) 서울서부지방법원 2018.05.04 2017가단18111

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 60,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from August 11, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. 1) On September 7, 2015, the Defendant prepared a cash custody certificate with the purport that “the Defendant paid 60,000 won in two equal installments of 120,000 won, and the remainder of 60,000 won,” and that “the Defendant shall also pay 60,000 won,” to the Plaintiff. 2) On December 5, 2016, the Defendant issued a cash custody certificate with the same purport as the said 1 (hereinafter referred to as the “cash custody certificate”).

(B) prepared and proposed the statement. [In the absence of any dispute over the grounds for recognition, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings.]

B. In light of the facts established above, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 60,00,000,000, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following August 10, 2017, on which the copy of the instant complaint was served to the day of full payment, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Defense 1) The plaintiff is a person living together with the defendant, which is the main point of defense of revocation of declaration by duress.

B) Around 1990, the Defendant borrowed KRW 60 million to the Plaintiff at the Plaintiff’s request in 1990. (c) Around 1990, the Defendant used the Plaintiff’s operation of investment in securities with the Plaintiff’s money of KRW 60,000,000, but incurred total loss. (d) The Plaintiff made from 2010 to the Plaintiff from time to time, phone calls to the Defendant from around 60,000 to time, and “In the Republic of Korea, the Plaintiff was at the police station, and he was at the same flusium, and the flusium was at the same flusium, and the flusium was at the same flusium.” If 60,000 won is not repaid, the Defendant threatened the Plaintiff by means of intimidation that “I do not have the flusium.”

F. On December 5, 2016, the Plaintiff’s finding the Defendant and coercioned that “I will not draw up and give a cash custody certificate as he read.”

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.10.30 2020가단212469

-서울서부지방법원 2019.04.18 2018나39178

-서울남부지방법원 2020.11.27 2020나52984

-대법원 2015.01.29 2013다92903

-창원지방법원진주지원 2014.11.19 2014가단6806