(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.01.30 2016가합206624

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 성남지원 2018.01.30 2016가합206624

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 400,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 5% from September 1, 2016 to January 10, 2017.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff is the mother of the Defendant, and the Plaintiff’s father and wife C is the legal couple with the Defendant, and is currently in a divorce lawsuit.

B. At the spring of 2016, the Defendant prepared and rendered the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan certificates”) to the Plaintiff.

The amount above 400,000,000 won per loan shall be fixed and promised to be repaid by August 31, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of evidence No. 1, purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s primary assertion 1) around 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 490 million to the Defendant at the Defendant’s request, which had conducted real estate enforcement business. However, the Defendant failed to repay the loan, and the Defendant promised to settle the amount that the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant up to August 31, 2016 by preparing the loan certificate of this case. Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff KRW 400,000,000 as stated in the loan certificate of this case, and damages for delay thereof. 2) Even if the Defendant did not bear the Defendant’s obligation under the loan certificate of this case, the Defendant is liable as a joint and several surety by preparing the loan certificate of this case, and at least, the Defendant jointly and severally and severally guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to the Plaintiff, who is the Defendant’s wife.

B. The plaintiff alleged by the defendant did not actually pay the amount to C as business funds.

In the event that the loan certificate of this case is likely to be repaid because of the excessive amount of the C's business debt, the plaintiff would not lend money to C unless the plaintiff prepares the loan certificate of this case, and C would be divorced and forced to prepare the loan certificate, so the loan certificate of this case is null and void.

3. The judgment of this Court

A. We examine the judgment of the plaintiff's primary argument, and all descriptions of evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 8 and arguments.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2014.09.16 2012나10513

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.10.18 2017가단1270

-대구지방법원 2017.06.14 2016가단11155

-광주지방법원순천지원 2017.08.17 2015가단78639

-의정부지방법원 2021.04.06 2019가단23046