(영문) 인천지방법원 2020.01.07 2019가단19770

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) 인천지방법원 2020.01.07 2019가단19770

대여금등

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff 271,198,848 won and 237,402,00 won among them to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as a whole, the following facts can be acknowledged: (a) the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a loan transaction agreement on June 23, 2015; (b) the total amount of principal and interest the Plaintiff extended to the Defendant according to the agreement was 237,402,00; (c) the total amount of principal and interest the Defendant had not paid to the Defendant was 271,198,848; and (d) the present rate of the loan agreement on July 9, 2019 is 8.5% per annum.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the unpaid loans of KRW 271,198,848 and the principal of KRW 237,402,00 among the unpaid loans of KRW 277,40,00 per annum from July 10, 2019 to the date of full payment. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim for payment of KRW 8.5% per annum is reasonable.

B. On the Defendant’s assertion 1), it is reasonable to conclude a loan agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff. However, the said loan agreement is based on the Defendant’s “No. C Lodging Facilities D and E” (hereinafter “each real estate of this case”).

(2) The Plaintiff’s claim of this case should be dismissed, as the Plaintiff and the Defendant asserted that the sales contract of this case was concluded for the purpose of raising funds. However, the sales contract of this case was terminated, and that the Defendant did not acquire the amount based on the above loan agreement. Thus, the Defendant does not bear the obligation to return the loan that was concluded in addition to the above sales contract. 2) Even if the sales contract of this case was terminated, the loan contract between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was concluded for the purpose of preparing the sales price of each real estate, and even if the sales contract of this case was terminated for each real estate, the sales contract and the above loan contract are separate contracts different from

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2020.01.07 2019가단19770

-인천지방법원 2020.11.10 2020가단9465

-인천지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단21765

-서울고등법원 2020.05.08 2019나2042892

-인천지방법원 2016.09.27 2016가단21574