(영문) 청주지방법원 2016.02.16 2014나5006 | 리걸엔진

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) 청주지방법원 2016.02.16 2014나5006

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 30, 2008, the Defendant entered into a lease contract with the Daewoo Capital Co., Ltd. with the acquisition cost of KRW 388,00,00,00 (the acquisition cost was changed to KRW 368,649,283 on July 31, 2008), and the lease period of KRW 60 months. On August 27, 2008, the Defendant completed the registration of ownership in the name of the Defendant with respect to the instant Non-Dodoer.

B. On May 208, the Defendant concluded an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, who is a driving engineer of the Frenchdo, to bear part of the purchase price of the Frenchdodododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododododo, while driving the Frenchdodododododo at the same time. The Defendant entered into an agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant to have 50% of the operating earnings of the Frenchdododododododododododo, excluding expenses, paid KRW 3

C. Under the instant agreement, the Plaintiff paid KRW 95,000,000 to the Defendant on May 6, 2008, and KRW 20,000,000 on May 30, 2008, and KRW 25,000,000 on July 25, 2008, and KRW 5,000,000 on August 5, 2008, and KRW 95,000,00 on August 19, 200 (hereinafter “the instant money”).

From the date of the agreement of this case to the date of the management of all revenues and expenditures related to the operation of the Frenchdo reservoir, the Defendant paid 3,000,000 won monthly wages to the Plaintiff from December 2008 to April 2012 in accordance with the agreement of this case.

E. The Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant on suspicion that the Defendant, who was jointly owned by the Plaintiff and the Defendant, provided the instant Buddhist storage as collateral and used it at will, but the Defendant was not subject to a disposition of non-prosecution regarding the charge of the above embezzlement.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence 1, 2, Eul's evidence 1 through 5, 8, 9, 14 through 16, 26, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2018.01.26 2017고단1327

-청주지방법원충주지원 2014.08.07 2013가단754

-서울남부지방법원 2019.07.18 2019고정340

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.03 2014가합24858

-대전지방법원 2018.11.14 2018가단6522