(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가단52915

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) 수원지방법원 2015.07.17 2014가단52915

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion of the parties set a loan to the Defendant at 2% per month on August 27, 2007 (hereinafter “instant loan”). However, the Defendant is obliged to pay part of interest, the principal amount of KRW 10 million on March 14, 201, and pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 19.7 million (the principal amount of KRW 55 million and interest KRW 91.6 million) and damages for delay on the principal amount of KRW 55 million among the principal amount.

As to this, the defendant argues that the loan of this case actually occurred between C and D (E) that is the parent of the defendant, not the defendant, and that the plaintiff exempted the defendant from the debt of this case by preparing a certificate of loan of KRW 90 million between D and D on October 29, 2013.

B. The plaintiff, on August 27, 2007, remitted the sum of KRW 65 million to the Korean C C C’s account (Account Number F) on two occasions. The defendant, on August 27, 2007, on the payment date of the payee, the Plaintiff, the face value of KRW 65 million, the date of payment, December 31, 2008, the place of payment, the place of payment, and the promissorysory notes with each Sungnam-si, on which the payment was delayed, shall be delayed, if a compulsory execution is conducted, it shall be deemed that there is no objection even if there is no objection (No. 317, 207, a notary public who was examined by the law firm, and No. 317, hereinafter “notarial deed”), and the fact that the bill was prepared and delivered to the plaintiff is not disputed between the parties, or the principal and interest on the loan of this case may be recognized in full view of each evidence No. 1, 2, and No. 2.

(2) The Defendant’s defense of the defense does not require any method as an obligee’s sole act extinguishing the claim by a unilateral declaration of intention against the obligor. Therefore, it can be made by implied declaration of intention, and whether there was such implied declaration of intention is a substitute party.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2017.02.02 2016가단16067

-서울고등법원 2016.08.18 2015나2075870

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.07.04 2016가단9233

-서울남부지방법원 2015.12.08 2014가합115606

-의정부지방법원 2016.09.08 2015가단113125