(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.09.24 2019나209193

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 2020.09.24 2019나209193

약정금

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against the defendant shall be revoked, and the plaintiff's claim corresponding to the revocation shall be dismissed.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. From December 30, 2016 to August 10, 2018, the Plaintiff traded money as follows.

E D

B. The document of this case is referred to as "the document of this case," stating that "the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 45 million" and "the document of this case."

(iii) there is an existence of [the absence of a dispute over the basis for recognition, as described in Gap evidence 3 and 4, respectively.]

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The Defendant: (a) was the person who operated the instant marina (hereinafter “C”); (b) lent the card settlement machine used in the instant marina to the Plaintiff on November 2016, and changed the sales subsidy to the Plaintiff; (c) the Plaintiff believed that the Defendant would replace the card settlement machine; and (d) paid the money to the Defendant.

However, the Defendant did not replace the card settlement machine of this case, and agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 45 million and damages for delay.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay the money under the above agreement to the plaintiff.

B. The Defendant merely lent the name to F, the husband of the Defendant, to F, and is not the operator of the instant marina, and there was no agreement from the Plaintiff to borrow money or to assert by the Plaintiff, and there was no fact that the document of this case was prepared.

(B) (A) The above money was borrowed by F from the Plaintiff while operating the instant marina in the name of the Defendant, or was remitted from the Plaintiff in the course of using the Plaintiff’s immediate settlement service with respect to the sales of the instant marina in the course of using the Plaintiff’s immediate settlement service. 3. As alleged by the Plaintiff, whether the Defendant agreed to replace the card settlement machine with the Plaintiff while operating the instant marina, and agreed to repay KRW 45 million after borrowing the money.

As seen earlier, the document of this case contains the content that the Defendant would pay KRW 45 million.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.29 2015나3533

-수원지방법원 2019.07.24 2018나10613

-인천지방법원 2018.06.08 2018노1068

-수원지방법원 여주지원 2018.02.07 2017고단1184

-인천지방법원 2015.09.22 2014가단52857