(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나17706

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) 대구지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나17706

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. Comprehensively taking account of the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 6 (including additional numbers) and the overall purport of pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the defendant may recognize the fact that on August 28, 2013, the defendant paid the plaintiff KRW 10,000,000 among the KRW 70,000,000 to the plaintiff before September 2013 and agreed to pay the remainder within four months. The fact that the original copy of the instant payment order was served on August 18, 2015 is clear.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 and damages for delay.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant's expression of intention, which is not a medical doctor, asserts that "A evidence 1-1 (written rejection of payment; hereinafter "the written rejection of payment in this case") was not prepared by the defendant while borrowing money from the plaintiff, but the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff and invested in the said joint project." The defendant, while running the joint project with C and D, made an investment in C and D with money borrowed from the plaintiff, and made up to C to meet the plaintiff's demand for payment."

A declaration of intention shall be effective even if it was known that the reporter is not a true one.

However, if the other party knew or could have known that he was not a witness, it must be null and void.

(1) Article 107(1) of the Civil Act provides that “The expression of intention” refers to the expression of intention of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and it does not refer to the expression of intention in the genuine mind. Thus, even if the voter does not bring the contents of his/her intention in the genuine mind, in the circumstances at the time of the expression of intention, it cannot be deemed as the expression of intention, not the expression of intention lacking the intention of internal effect.

(See Supreme Court Decision 2004Da70772 Decided December 21, 2006, etc.). Even if the Defendant’s assertion is based on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant did not appear in mind with the truth.

참조조문

-민법 제107조 제1항

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2015.04.03 2013나10694

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.20 2015나42284

-대법원 2015.08.27 2015다211630

-인천지방법원 2020.08.20 2019나3448

-대법원 2015. 8. 27. 선고 2015다211630 판결