(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단532774

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) 수원지방법원 2017.04.25 2016가단532774

보관금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 110,000,000 and its service period shall be from April 1, 2013 to the date of serving a duplicate of the instant complaint.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1, the Defendant, on February 28, 2013, prepared and issued a cash custody certificate stating that KRW 110,000,000 shall be repaid to the Plaintiff between March 15, 2013 and March 31, 2013 (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”).

B. According to the above facts, barring any other special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 110,000,000 won with 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from April 1, 2013 to the service date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case, which is the day following the due date, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. Defendant’s assertion (1) The Defendant: (a) set up a cash custody certificate of this case that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 30 million to the Defendant on the condition that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 110 million to the Defendant, on the condition that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 2 billion to the Defendant as business funds.

(2) However, the Plaintiff paid KRW 15 million to the Defendant as research expenses, but did not invest the remainder of KRW 15 million and the business funds of KRW 2 billion. Therefore, the cash custody certificate of this case became null and void due to the nonperformance of the conditions.

B. Since there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff prepared and issued the cash custody certificate of this case on the condition that the Plaintiff subsidized the Defendant with a research cost of KRW 30 million and invested KRW 2 billion in the future as business funds, the above assertion by the Defendant is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and accepted.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.12.15 2017가합878

-서울서부지방법원 2018.05.04 2017가단18111

-수원지방법원 2018.11.28 2018나2407

-서울북부지방법원 2015.01.30 2014나5522

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.28 2013가합37956