(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.02.02 2017가단203132

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.02.02 2017가단203132

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 5, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Around February 12, 2015, the Defendant: (a) borrowed 40 million won from the Plaintiff as interest-free; and (b) paid 1 million won each month from July 30, 2015 to July 30, 2015; and (c) written a loan certificate (Evidence 2; hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the purport that the Defendant would lose the benefit of time without the peremptory notice and immediately pay the remainder to the Plaintiff when the Defendant violated the terms and conditions of the loan certificate of this case. There is no dispute between the parties.

As long as the establishment of an assertion and judgment document is recognized as authentic, the court shall recognize the existence and contents of declaration of intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposition document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof as to the denial of the contents stated in the disposition document.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant shall be deemed to have borrowed KRW 40,000,000 from the Plaintiff as stated in the loan certificate of this case, which the Plaintiff prepared and executed.

The Defendant asserted that the loan certificate of this case was prepared differently from the fact by requesting the Defendant to conduct internal audit data and tax adjustment on the part of the Plaintiff Company, and that the Defendant did not actually borrow KRW 40 million from the Plaintiff.

In light of the following circumstances, Gap's evidence 1 through 3, 6, 7, 9 through 12, Eul's evidence 1, 2 through 6, 9 through 11, Eul's witness B, and Eul's testimony, fact-finding results with respect to Korea Light T&A, and the whole purport of oral argument, it cannot be deemed that there is a clear and acceptable counter-proof to deny the contents of the loan certificate of this case, which is a disposal document, even if all the evidence and the remaining evidence submitted by the defendant were presented in this case.

The defendant's loan interest is the amount borrowed.

참조판례

-대법원 2005. 5. 27. 선고 2004다60065 판결

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2016.02.02 2015가단20930

-부산지방법원 2017.06.22 2016가단67423

-서울고등법원 2016.02.05 2014나33224

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.17 2014가합43026

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.23 2017나59268