(영문) 제주지방법원 2016.10.27 2015나2638 | 리걸엔진

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) 제주지방법원 2016.10.27 2015나2638

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 2, 1994, the Plaintiff loaned loans of KRW 10,00,00 to Codefendant B (the Defendant’s mother; hereinafter “B”) on October 24, 1997, at the interest rate of KRW 12.5-13.5% on repayment date, to the Codefendant B (the Plaintiff’s mother; hereinafter “B”), and the Defendant and Codefendant C (hereinafter “C”) of the first instance trial, and the Codefendant D (hereinafter “D”) of the first instance trial jointly and severally guaranteed the loan obligations.

B. The Plaintiff received a total of KRW 10,000,000 as the principal of the loan, but did not receive partial damages for delay, and the damages for delay not yet paid are KRW 5,90,525.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Eul's evidence Nos. 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the plaintiff's cause of action, the defendant is jointly and severally liable with B, C, and D to pay 5,900,525 won for delay payable to the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. As to the defense that the loan contract of this case is null and void, the defendant alleged that the contract of this case was null and void since the actual debtor of the loan of this case was C, while the plaintiff was aware that it would use the loan as the gambling fund. However, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff entered into the loan of this case with B while being aware that C would use the loan as the gambling fund, this part of the defendant's defense is without merit. 2) In addition, since the defendant entered into the loan of this case with B as the formal debtor under the plaintiff's understanding, it is argued that the loan of this case was a false representation, but the defendant's defense of this part is not acceptable.

Even if B entered into the loan agreement of this case as a formal debtor as alleged by the Defendant, such circumstance alone does not constitute a false declaration of conspiracy.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2016.10.27 2015나2676

-서울고등법원 2012. 2. 1. 선고 2011나13755 판결

-대전지방법원 2019.05.15 2018가합103369

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2017.02.15 2016가단9171

-제주지방법원 2015.7.17.선고 2014가단15612 판결