(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2015.03.17 2014나15

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) 서울북부지방법원 2015.03.17 2014나15

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. In around 2002, the Plaintiff filed a complaint with the Defendant as a crime of fraud and occupational embezzlement with the Seoul East Police Station, and thereby rendered a decision to suspend indictment against the Defendant.

B. Accordingly, the defendant paid 94 million won to the plaintiff on May 19, 2005 to the plaintiff on May 19, 2005, and paid 14 million won on May 19, 2005 to the plaintiff, and the same year.

6. To pay 5 million won for the last day of each month from 30.30 million won.

“At the time of the preparation and issuance of a letter of commitment to the purport, the Plaintiff paid KRW 14 million according to the said letter of commitment, and accordingly, the Plaintiff withdrawn the said complaint against the Defendant on the same day.

[Ground of recognition] Evidence No. 1, No. 3, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 80 million, which has not yet been paid (=94 million - 14 million) and the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from December 1, 2012 to the date of full payment, after a copy of the complaint was served on the Defendant as requested by the Plaintiff, as a result of the above payment due date.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion (1), the Defendant asserts that there was no obligation to pay the money under the above payment sheet, since it was revealed that there was no payment for the construction work on behalf of the Defendant, and that there was no payment for the construction work on behalf of the Defendant, and that the Defendant did not have any obligation to pay the money.

Therefore, under the condition that the construction cost paid by the Plaintiff on behalf of the Defendant is settled later, the testimony of the witness C of the first instance court, which seems consistent with this, is entirely indicated in the terms and conditions alleged by the Defendant.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2013.11.22 2012가단53045

-수원지방법원 2019.05.01 2018나59076

-수원지방법원 2018.10.31 2018가단5962

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.12.21 2016가단15518

-서울서부지방법원 2018.05.25 2017가단25249