logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.06.27 2018가합729
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 280,000,000 as well as the annual rate of KRW 5% from July 9, 2017 to February 5, 2018, and the following.

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. In a case where the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, the existence of a legal act, which is its content, must be recognized unless there are special circumstances to the contrary, where the existence and content of the expression of intent expressed in the document are clear and acceptable.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2000Da38602 delivered on October 13, 2000). B.

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 and Nos. 1 through 3, the Plaintiff entered in C, a multi-stage sales similar organization, around 2016, and the Defendant and D agreed with the Plaintiff on July 9, 2016 that “if the Plaintiff (C) fails to pay interest and principal when the first-year maturity expires for the amount invested from June 30, 2016 to July 8, 2016 (280 million won), the Defendant and D will pay the said amount after the expiration of the maturity stipulated in the above agreement.”

C. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff 280,000,000 won and 15% interest per annum under the Civil Act from July 9, 2017 to February 5, 2018, which is the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, pursuant to the foregoing agreement, from July 9, 2017, and from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant did not actually borrow money from the plaintiff, and only the plaintiff prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1) with the plaintiff's intent to keep the money in order to stabilize the mind while investing money in C, this constitutes an expression of intention, and the plaintiff also knew or could have known it, it is invalid.

However, the instant claim is not a claim for loans based on the fact that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff, but a claim for the payment of agreed money based on an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant.

arrow