logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.07 2014나48452
대여금반환청구
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 12, 2012, the representative D of the Plaintiff Company sent the following e-mail to the Defendant who was at the time of teaching, and sent the draft of the service contract to the attached file.

(f) An application for business registration to the Seocho-gu Office for business registration, a personal business registration, or a legal entity, as a result of a service contract attached to the Seocho-gu, Bangladesh (the name of the business operator may be changed only when it is changed).

The location of the type of business is the location of the business consulting. (m) The degree of the type of business is the location of the current residence. (m) The degree of the (m) the degree of the business without a certified tax accountant learning

On November 15, 2012, the Defendant completed his business registration as “mutual name: Category C, Category of Business: Type of Business, Type of Business Consultation and Management of Business.”

C. Around that time, on November 15, 2012, the date of preparation, the service contract form between the Plaintiff (representative D) company (representative D) and the Defendant (representative C) (hereinafter “instant service contract”) was drafted as shown in the attached Form.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entries in Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including paper numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the request for loans

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff Company lent KRW 90,000,000 to the Defendant on November 15, 2012, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 90,000,000 to the Plaintiff Company as well as damages for delay.

B. In full view of the purport of each of the statements and arguments set forth in No. 5 and No. 7, the Plaintiff Company may recognize the fact that the Plaintiff Company remitted a total of KRW 90,000 to the Defendant on November 15, 2012 under its name, around November 15, 2012.

As acknowledged earlier, Article 7 of the instant service contract provides that the Plaintiff Company shall lend KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant on a yearly basis by March 31, 2013, and the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff Company the full amount of the principal and interest as soon as the lease period expires.

(2) On the other hand, the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as well as the overall purport of the pleadings can be acknowledged.

arrow