logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2019.05.30 2017나2038530
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiffs' appeal against the defendants and the claims extended by the plaintiff B in this court are all dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, which cited this case, is that part of the judgment of the court of first instance is dismissed, and except for the addition of the following '2. Additional Judgment' as to the allegations emphasized or added by the plaintiffs in this court, the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance is the same as the part of the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, this is

In the same part, the grounds of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows: “1,700,000 won on February 28, 2015” in Section 2, 17 of the judgment of the court of first instance shall be added.

The grounds of the judgment of the first instance are as follows: “The KRW 31,00,000,000 on November 4, 2015” in the second 19 of the judgment of the first instance shall be deemed as “the KRW 31,00,000 on November 14, 2015.”

On March 10, 2014, Plaintiff B added “Defendant D KRW 4,550,000, and KRW 10,000,000 on May 19, 2014.” On March 25, 2015, Plaintiff B corrected the amount of KRW 3,000,000 on March 25, 2015.”

The reasoning of the judgment of the first instance is as follows: (a) Defendant C transferred KRW 10,70,00 on January 7, 2015; (b) KRW 4,900,00 on July 31, 2015; (c) KRW 1,100,000 on August 1, 2015; (d) KRW 4,80,000 on August 31, 2015; and (e) KRW 0,30,000 on September 11, 2015; and (e) KRW 0,00 on September 1, 200, KRW 00 on September 13, 2015; and (e) KRW 0,50,000 on September 4, 2015; and (e) KRW 30,00 on May 10, 201, KRW 40 on May 10, 2015; and (e) KRW 30, 1030.4.5.4.1.0.

2. Additional determination

A. The plaintiffs committed a tort by deceiving money under the same deception from many friendships, including the plaintiffs, G, H, I, and J. The defendants asserted that they are liable to compensate the plaintiffs for damages equivalent to the remaining principal of the loan as joint tortfeasors. Therefore, the evidence submitted by the plaintiffs alone constitutes joint tort as alleged by the plaintiffs.

arrow