logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.01.18 2016나31304
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. The Defendant and C agreed to jointly establish D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”) with a contribution of KRW 100 million, thereby jointly establishing a pension development project.

B. On October 26, 2012, the Plaintiff, D, Defendant, and C set up a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant and C for consumption (hereinafter “instant contract”) with a joint and several liability as the interest rate of KRW 20 million by 2.5% and due date of payment by April 25, 2013.

C. From March 23, 2011 to February 7, 2013, the sum of KRW 1850 million was deposited in the D account under the name of E, which is C’s mother.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 4, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff’s assertion E had a loan claim by lending KRW 185,591,517 to D. However, the Plaintiff acquired the claim of KRW 20 million, which is a part of the above loan, from E, and D prepared the instant contract in a sense that D accepted it, and the Defendant jointly and severally guaranteed it.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 19 million won after deducting interest from 20 million won, and damages for delay.

3. As seen earlier, the fact that E transferred KRW 185 million to D’s account is recognized, but it is difficult to view that E lent the above amount to D in light of the relationship between the Defendant, C, E, etc. and the purport of the entire pleadings. Rather, C, while investing in D, appears to have remitted the investment amount in its own E name.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion based on the premise that E has a loan claim against D is without merit.

4. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just in conclusion, and the plaintiff's appeal is dismissed, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow