(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.05.26 2014가단58426

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) 대구지방법원 2015.05.26 2014가단58426

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On June 2008, the Plaintiff became aware of the Defendant’s purchase of an apartment house. Since the Defendant purchased the land and sold it in lots, the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100 million upon receiving a promissory note as security from the Defendant around July 2008 to August 2008.

After that, in October 2008, the Defendant returned the promissory notes to the Defendant and received payment of KRW 3-40 million.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff KRW 50 million and delay damages for the remaining loans.

B. Defendant around 2008 operated Co., Ltd., a construction company, and the Defendant did not lend KRW 100 million to C as the down payment upon the request of the Plaintiff for the new construction of a factory incorporated into Cheongdo, or not to the Defendant.

Since then, the Plaintiff reversed the construction contract, and C returned KRW 80 million to the Plaintiff and provided as security, thereby recovering promissory notes issued by C.

In addition, the plaintiff returned 20 million won to D designated by the plaintiff.

Even if the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant was recognized, five years have already passed since December 26, 2014, which was the extinctive prescription period for commercial matters, was since 2008.

2. The judgment of the court below is that the party to the contract is C and KRW 100 million is the contract price. The defendant's argument is followed and KRW 100 million is the loan, and there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant is the party to the contract.

The Plaintiff asserts that the fact that the Defendant issued a promissory note is a loan, not the construction cost, but the Defendant issued a promissory note. However, the Defendant asserts that the promissory note was issued by C, not by receiving KRW 100 million, but by receiving KRW 100 million, and that the Plaintiff was reversed the construction contract and requested to return money and issued at that time. Therefore, a promissory note is not proven

유사 판례

-대법원 2013.05.09 2013다2535

-서울남부지방법원 2017.11.09 2017가단200874

-서울동부지방법원 2016.05.13 2015나20577

-대구지방법원 2016.07.01 2015가단114644

-대법원 2014.10.30 2014다38531