(영문) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.01.19 2016가합208

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) 춘천지방법원 원주지원 2017.01.19 2016가합208

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 240,819,672 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate from April 11, 2016 to January 19, 2017, and the following.

Reasons

The main point of the parties’ assertion is that the Plaintiff lent KRW 60,000,000 to the Defendant around 2003. The Plaintiff and the Defendant, on January 19, 2016, shall settle the total amount of KRW 300,000 ( KRW 60,000 + KRW 240,000 + KRW 240,000) with the interest accrued until then, and accordingly, the Defendant’s obligation and obligation confirmation (Evidence 1; hereinafter “instant confirmation”).

(2) Accordingly, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 300,000,000 and damages for delay.

Defendant 1) Around 2005, the Plaintiff invested KRW 60,000 in the Defendant for his own invention-related business, and there is no fact that the Plaintiff lent the above amount to the Defendant. (2) The Plaintiff unilaterally demanded the Plaintiff to refund the investment amount and its interest amount to KRW 300,00,000,000, and sought to have the Plaintiff sell the heat soup period developed by the Defendant at the national temple. As such, the Defendant proposed that “it would be possible for the Plaintiff to pay the investment amount to the Plaintiff at KRW 300,000 per 1 soup period of soup” (hereinafter “instant proposal”), and the Defendant prepared the instant confirmation document with its consent only.

In accordance with the proposal of this case, the Plaintiff had the Defendant enter into the confirmation document of this case by deceiving the Defendant, although there was no idea that the Plaintiff would be repaid investment money and its interest.

3. As such, the Plaintiff did not agree to lend KRW 60,000 to the Defendant, and the Defendant did not pay interest KRW 240,000,000 to the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant did not have the obligation to pay KRW 300,000,000 to the Plaintiff and the delay damages.

However, according to the proposal of this case, the Defendant is only obligated to repay KRW 60,000,000 to the Plaintiff by paying KRW 300,000 per 1 soup sale price.

Judgment

A. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is entitled to make a statement.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.29 2018가단112681

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.01.29 2014가단32963

-수원지방법원 2017.05.12 2016가단32564

-의정부지방법원 2015.05.29 2015나2516

-서울북부지방법원 2015.07.16 2014가합21001