(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.11.22 2017나6963

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) 의정부지방법원 2018.11.22 2017나6963

양수금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On April 23, 2007, the Plaintiff asserted that the monthly interest was 5% by lending KRW 2 million to the Defendant as a broker by the D Company. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the payee was the Plaintiff, the issuer as the Defendant, and the issuer as the Defendant, issued promissory notes on April 23, 2007 and completed notarial acts.

However, since the defendant did not pay interest as promised and did not pay the principal, it is obligated to pay the plaintiff the face value of promissory note 4 million won and damages for delay.

B. The defendant's assertion that the defendant borrowed KRW 1 million from D Company E on April 23, 2007, and on the same day, only issued a promissory note with a face value of KRW 4 million to E, and there is no difference between the defendant and the defendant to borrow money or issue a promissory note to the defendant.

2. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 2 and 4 and the whole pleadings, the defendant issued a promissory note with face value of 4 million won, the issuer and F, and the plaintiff on April 23, 2007. With respect to the above Promissory Notes, a notary public on August 13, 2007 prepared a promissory note No. 150 on August 13, 2007, and the above notarial deed contains a certificate of personal seal impression attached to the above notarial deed.

However, in light of the following facts and circumstances, which can be acknowledged by the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and Eul evidence Nos. 3 through 7 and the purport of the whole pleadings, it is not sufficient to recognize that the above facts of recognition alone lent KRW 2 million to the defendant on April 23, 2007, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, in full view of the following facts and circumstances, a person who lent money to the Defendant appears to be the E of the D Company. However, the Plaintiff merely sought a loan from the Defendant directly, and accordingly, the Plaintiff received a loan from the Defendant E.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 공주지원 2012.01.06 2011고단251

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.12 2012나34244

-수원지방법원 2015.05.06 2014고단5533

-전주지방법원 2015.10.16 2015가단13388

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.10.16 2018가단1377