logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.12.12 2017나63986
대여금 반환
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. The summary of the grounds for appeal is that the Plaintiff and the Defendant received KRW 20 million from the Plaintiff to operate the main points of “C” as the partnership business, and the Defendant only prepared a loan certificate to the Plaintiff in order to know the Plaintiff who is uneasy about the partnership business. The Plaintiff stated in the loan certificate that “the said money is recognized as a partner’s main place of business while promoting the joint business” and the rate of distribution of the profit accrued from the future joint business without agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant is set at 3:7. Thus, the said money cannot be deemed as a loan.

Preliminaryly, even if the above money is a loan, there was an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to substitute for the repayment of the loan by investing a partner's loan with respect to the repayment method, so long as the Defendant thereafter invested a considerable amount of money with a partner's “C”, and thus, there was no obligation to repay the above money to the Plaintiff.

2. As a result of examining the defendant's grounds for appeal and the evidence submitted by the court of first instance, the legitimacy of the judgment of the court of first instance as to this case is examined. The court's explanation on this case is identical to the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except for the part of the "decision on the defendant's argument" of the third-party 16 to 4 of the judgment of first instance as set forth in the following 2. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. The part to be dried;

First of all of the judgment on the defendant's assertion, since the defendant argued that the above money received from the plaintiff is not a loan but a loan, it is true that the plaintiff and the defendant agreed to operate the "C" as a partnership business, and the defendant stated that "the above amount is recognized as a partner's principal in promoting joint business" in the loan certificate prepared and issued by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

arrow