logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.09.08 2016가단505390
대여금반환
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 120,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from October 1, 2015 to April 18, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Defendant: (a) borrowed KRW 121,035,592 on four occasions from May 15, 2014 to October 31, 2014; (b) borrowed KRW 121,035,592 from the Plaintiff on four occasions; and (c) on February 16, 2015, the Plaintiff would pay KRW 120,000,000 to the Plaintiff by September 2015.

“The fact that a letter of undertaking is written is not disputed between the parties or recognized by each description of Gap evidence 1-4.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay interest in arrears calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, etc., from October 1, 2015 to April 18, 2016, a copy of the complaint of this case was served on the Defendant from September 30, 2015, which was agreed by the Defendant to pay to the Defendant as above 120,000 won, and from September 30, 2015, which was agreed by the Defendant to pay to the Defendant.

2. As to the Defendant’s assertion and judgment, the Defendant borrowed KRW 64,436,058,00,000,000,000 to the Plaintiff due to the businessization of Company B operated by the Defendant. However, the Defendant asserts to the effect that it is reasonable to deduct the Plaintiff from the Defendant’s debt the materials and vehicle deposit, unpaid wages, and truck repair expenses, the amount of KRW 40,000,000,000,000,000, which are owned by Company B while entering the Plaintiff’s management company, and the amount of KRW 10,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 for the last month when retired from the Plaintiff’s management company on February 2, 2015, and paid KRW 3,00,000,000 on behalf of the Plaintiff.

Although there is no evidence to acknowledge the above assertion by the defendant, and even if the defendant had the money to be deducted from the plaintiff, the reason for the above assertion was that the date and time occurred before the above commitment was made, the above assertion was reflected in all at the time of the preparation of the above commitment.

arrow