(영문) 광주지방법원목포지원 2020.10.28 2020가단1576

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) 광주지방법원목포지원 2020.10.28 2020가단1576

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The fact that the defendant, on December 13, 2001, prepared a cash custody certificate (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) composed of “the rent of KRW 37 million, repayment date on January 13, 2002, the debtor C, the guarantor, the defendant, and the plaintiff” (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) to the plaintiff is not in dispute between the parties, or it can be acknowledged by neglecting the overall purport of the pleadings as stated in the evidence No. 1.

2. The parties' assertion

A. After drawing up the Plaintiff’s argument, C and the Defendant paid KRW 200,000 to the Plaintiff around August 201, and did not pay the remainder of KRW 36,80,000,000 to the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 37,7,000,000 out of the obligations stated in the cash custody certificate of this case.

The defendant paid KRW 850,00 to the plaintiff around August 2016.

B. The Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff on the instant cash custody certificate was extinguished by the statute of limitations.

C or the Defendant did not have to pay KRW 200,000 to the Plaintiff around August 2011, and the Defendant did not know that it paid KRW 850,00 to the Plaintiff around August 2016, and even if it was actually paid, it would be difficult for the Plaintiff to do so irrespective of the obligations stated in the cash custody certificate of this case, and it is merely that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff the money to the Plaintiff.

3. On August 201, 201, C or the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000 of the cash custody certificate of this case.

The plaintiff's assertion that the defendant paid KRW 850,00 to the plaintiff on August 2016 is without any evidence.

The defendant's obligation based on the cash custody certificate of this case against the plaintiff has expired by prescription, and the defendant's defense pointing this out has merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim against the defendant in this case against the defendant is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.01.08 2018가단16495

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.07 2016가단77453

-제주지방법원 2013.10.24 2012고단1615

-전주지방법원 2019.03.29 2018나2915