(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.11.27 2020가단7769

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2020.11.27 2020가단7769

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 10 million won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from July 2, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff, who had been engaged in aggregate business, became aware of the Defendant who had been engaged in the said representative at the time of the Government City D upon introduction of C.

B. From 2005 to 2007, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant several times from 2007 to 2012, and the Defendant, around 2014, provided a loan certificate and a cash custody certificate to the Plaintiff, while demanding the Plaintiff to pay the borrowed money up to 200 million won and the interest.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 10 million won with the loan or agreed amount as well as damages for delay calculated by the rate of 12% per annum from July 2, 2020 to the day following the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order to the day of complete payment, unless there are special circumstances.

3. The defendant's assertion argues that the judgment of the defendant's assertion is null and void because the loan certificate and cash custody certificate submitted by the plaintiff are documents inconsistent with the real claim.

As long as the formation of a disposal document is deemed to be authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and content of the declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document, unless there is clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the statement.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2017Da291586 Decided September 10, 2019, etc.). However, the Defendant did not submit any clear and acceptable evidence to deny the obligation stated in the loan certificate or cash custody certificate, and there is no other evidence to deem that the loan certificate or cash custody certificate submitted by the Plaintiff was invalid or drafted by duress. Thus, the Defendant’s assertion is without merit.

4. The conclusion is that the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

참조판례

-대법원 2019. 9. 10. 선고 2017다291586 판결

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2020.01.08 2019나52003

-창원지방법원밀양지원 2020.06.17 2020가단331

-인천지방법원 2020.03.27 2019가단7067

-부산지방법원 2019.07.24 2018나6744