logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.08.20 2014나49262
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's claim added in the trial is dismissed.

3. The time when the action has been brought.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the statements and arguments set forth in subparagraphs 5-1 and 2-1 and 5-2, it is recognized that C (hereinafter “C”) remitted each of the aforementioned amounts to the corporate bank accounts under the name of the Defendant (hereinafter “C”) (hereinafter “C”) to “F”), “D Co., Ltd.” on September 11, 2009,” “E Co., Ltd.” on September 17, 2010,” “E Co., Ltd.” on January 21, 201, and respectively changed to the trade name as of October 15, 2013, respectively).

2. Determination on the claim for transfer money

A. The amount of remittance of the Plaintiff’s assertion is determined and lent by C to the Defendant as of June 30, 2010, and C transferred the Plaintiff’s claim against KRW 200 million out of the loan amount of KRW 500 million to the Plaintiff around March 27, 2013. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million, which is part of the transfer amount, and the delay damages.

B. Determination 1) According to each of the statements in Gap evidence No. 1, and No. 2-1 and No. 2, Eul and the defendant prepared a monetary loan agreement with the defendant that Eul set and lent KRW 1 billion to the defendant as interest rate of 8.5% per annum and June 30, 2010 (hereinafter referred to as "money loan agreement of this case") (hereinafter referred to as "money loan agreement of this case").

(2) In light of the following circumstances, the Defendant issued C a receipt of KRW 1.1 billion on December 31, 2009 to C, and the receipt of KRW 200 million on January 8, 2010, and each of the above receipts was printed on “loan.” However, in light of the following circumstances acknowledged by comprehensively taking into account the respective descriptions in subparagraphs B through 5, witness G of the first instance trial, H, and I’s testimony and arguments, C is deemed to have remitted the instant remittance amount to pay part of the acquisition amount (hereinafter “instant stock transfer agreement”).

arrow