(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.03.29 2018가단15809

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) 대전지방법원 2019.03.29 2018가단15809

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 37,700,000 won to the plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 27, 2008 to July 2, 2018 and the next day.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 11, 2006, the Defendant prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a loan certificate of KRW 42.5 million, the due date for payment of the loan certificate (Evidence 1-1), and the receipt of the loan certificate (Evidence 1-2) on May 1, 2007.

B. From July 20, 2007 to May 26, 2008, the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 4.8 million to the Plaintiff under the name of the Defendant or D.

[Ground for Recognition: Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1, 2-2, Gap evidence 2-1, 2-2, purport of whole pleadings]

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of 37.7 million won (42.5 million won - 4.8 million won) to the Plaintiff, barring special circumstances.

B. The Defendant’s assertion 1) The Defendant asserts that, since the said money claimed by the Plaintiff was paid to the Defendant and the Defendant-type E as investments, there is no obligation to borrow money against the Plaintiff based on the instant loan certificate and the receipt of the loan certificate. If the disposal document was duly established, 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 any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the content stated in the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2015Da256732, Jun. 9, 2016). It is difficult to view that the statement in subparagraph 1 alone, as stated in the above loan certificate, proves that the Defendant was not able to repay the money to the Plaintiff notwithstanding the statement in the above loan certificate, etc.

Rather, in full view of the purport of the arguments in the above evidence, the defendant was in a business relationship with E and the plaintiff paid the money necessary for the business at the request of E and the defendant, and the plaintiff prepared and delivered the loan certificate of this case and the receipt of the loan certificate of this case. Thus, the defendant is willing to pay the above money.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.11.07 2017나64309

-서울서부지방법원 2019.01.17 2017나2889

-대구지방법원 2015.08.13 2015나852

-대전지방법원 2017.11.15 2017가단10531

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.23 2013가합47304