logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.11.21 2019나50571
대여금
Text

1. The part of the judgment of the court of first instance against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) shall be revoked, and the revoked part shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. As to this part of the facts admitted, the corresponding part of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance shall be cited pursuant to the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act, except for the following portions:

An abbreviationd name established in the judgment of the first instance is also used below the same.

The third to fourth to fourth of the judgment of the court of first instance are as follows.

On October 3, 2017, the Plaintiff was guilty of violating the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Catra, etc.) (Catra, Using Cameras), causing property damage, intimidation, and assault (Catra District Court 2017No8049). On July 23, 2018, the court of first instance found the Plaintiff guilty of the crime of intimidation, assault, and property damage, and sentenced a fine of KRW 7 million (Catra use photograph) to be acquitted. On February 12, 2019, the appellate court (C at the appellate court 2018No4938), which was appealed by the prosecutor, found the Plaintiff guilty of the crime of violation of the Act on Special Cases concerning the Punishment, etc. of Sexual Crimes (Catra, etc.) and sentenced the Plaintiff to a fine of KRW 3 million (Catra, etc.).

2. Determination as to the principal lawsuit

A. According to the Plaintiff’s claim for loans based on the Plaintiff’s primary proof, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay from September 28, 2017, which the Plaintiff seeks from September 28, 2017, with KRW 30 million based on the instant primary proof, and after the due date for payment.

(2) On August 14, 2017, the Defendant asserts that F repaid the Plaintiff KRW 22 million out of the instant loans on behalf of the Defendant.

The facts that F paid 22 million won to the Plaintiff on the above date do not dispute between the original and the Defendant.

arrow