logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.08.19 2019나323973
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff was drafted by the Defendant with the following loan certificates (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”).

The principal of a loan certificate (for investment in several districts): The due date for repayment of KRW 30,00,000 shall be two years from the date of borrowing.

The creditor shall make a dump truck transport case in a three-dimensional district as an investment deposit and guarantee the amount of KRW 30,000,000 (30,000) to the defendant and D.

Creditor: Defendant, D

B. On December 16, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million to the Defendant.

[Reasons for Recognition: Facts without dispute, entry of evidence A1 and 2, purport of the whole pleadings]

2. The party's assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) was prepared by the Defendant, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant. The instant loan certificate is written by the Defendant as the surety, but it is a clerical error, and the Defendant is the primary debtor. Even if the Defendant’s investment is made, the instant loan certificate has an agreement guaranteeing the return of principal. As the Plaintiff urged the payment to the Defendant, and the Defendant promised to pay the Plaintiff the principal. Accordingly, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30 million and the delay damages therefor. 2) Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s assertion did not lend the Defendant the amount of KRW 30 million to the Defendant, but invested KRW 30 million in relation to the business that C Co., Ltd (hereinafter “C”) supplies dump trucks to the tunnel.

The principal debtor of the instant loan certificate is C, and the Defendant guaranteed C’s debt to the Plaintiff as the internal director.

C The above project caused damage to the Plaintiff due to the civil petition, demonstration, construction obstruction, etc. of the environmental organization, and C could not return the investment amount to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant’s guaranteed obligation extinguished by the subsidiary nature following the extinguishment of the principal obligation.

Therefore, the defendant.

arrow