logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2020.06.02 2019가단231136
구상금
Text

The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

Litigation costs shall be borne by the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant transferred KRW 10 million to the Defendant’s account as well as KRW 10 million on March 14, 2019, KRW 3 million on June 6, 2019, and KRW 14.3 million on August 16, 2019.

B. On July 31, 2019, the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly issued promissory notes of KRW 100 million in each Gyeonggi-do (hereinafter “instant promissory notes”) with the payee D, the due date of payment, August 20, 2019, the place of payment, and the place of payment. On the same day, D prepared a notarial deed on the instant promissory notes.

C. After that, the Plaintiff repaid KRW 100 million to D on August 30, 2019.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3 (including branch numbers for those with a satisfy number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion lent KRW 14.3 million to the Defendant from February 22, 2019 to August 16, 2019, but the Defendant did not repay the said loan.

The Plaintiff and the Defendant, together with another party, mediated the resale of the apartment unit in the Asia-si, Chungcheongnam-si, and had the Plaintiff and the Defendant jointly issue the Promissory Notes in order to compensate for damages caused by the negligence of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, while jointly issue them, to bear the liability ratio of 1/2.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 14.3 million with the Defendant’s share of KRW 50 million with respect to the Promissory Notes in this case (= KRW 14.3 million) and damages for delay.

3. The following circumstances, which are acknowledged by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments as seen earlier, (i) whether there was an agreement on a loan for consumption with the Defendant regarding the claim for a loan, did not present specific arguments, such as the maturity of payment or the agreement on interest, and any agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as to the said agreement.

arrow