(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2017가단96079

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.12 2017가단96079

대여금등

Text

1. The Defendant jointly with the Plaintiff KRW 36,755,076 as well as the year from May 17, 2017 to October 12, 2018.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 2, 199, the Defendant purchased 101, which was in operation of the Da-si Building (hereinafter “instant real estate”) and completed the registration of ownership transfer on April 29, 199.

B. On March 14, 2015, the Defendant entered into a lease agreement (hereinafter “instant lease agreement”) with regard to the instant real estate, setting the lease period of KRW 130 million and the lease period of KRW 24 months from April 3, 2015.

C. B submitted the instant lease agreement to the Plaintiff on March 26, 2015, and entered into a contract with the Plaintiff to obtain a loan of KRW 55 million (hereinafter “instant loan”). On April 3, 2015, the Plaintiff paid the instant loan by directly remitting KRW 55 million to the Defendant’s account, a lessor under the instant lease agreement.

B. B was unable to repay the instant loan by the due date, and as of May 16, 2017, the amount in arrears as of May 16, 201 is the total of KRW 36,75,076, interest KRW 4,020,570, and KRW 40,775,646.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Occurrence of liability for damages;

A. (1) The plaintiff asserts that although the plaintiff did not conclude the lease contract of this case, the plaintiff was unaware of the loan of this case by deceiving the plaintiff, such as by drawing up and submitting the lease contract of this case in a false manner according to the direction of Bracker, although he did not have concluded the lease contract of this case, the defendant asserts that as the joint tortfeasor B and B, the defendant is liable to pay the total amount of the principal and interest of the loan of this case and the delay

(2) As to this, the Defendant actually concluded a lease contract with B on the instant real estate, and received a loan from the Plaintiff, and the lease contract was terminated on the ground that B did not receive a refund of the deposit for the lease of the house at the house where B was one’s own death, and the down payment was confiscated.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.12 2017가단5124696

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.10 2019나47812

-인천지방법원 2016.05.24 2015가단234748

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.10 2017나27210

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.05.08 2019고단8751