(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.07 2017가단16614

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) 서울북부지방법원 2018.06.07 2017가단16614

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from June 29, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff is the representative director of C (hereinafter “C”) and D (hereinafter “D”) and the Defendant is the representative director of E (hereinafter “E”).

B. B. From December 2016, C entered into a simplified contract with E on a public performance held in G from F, a company located in Australia (hereinafter “instant public performance”), with the content that C would operate a shop in the performance hall (six square meters) for the performance hall spectators, and the main content thereof are as follows.

The performance period and the simplified store contract period: The performance time from December 21, 2016 to February 26, 2017: 19:30 on a ordinary day, weekend and holidays 14:00, and 18:00 rental fees: C shall divide the amount of 10% of the daily sales amount into the accounts designated by E by December 30 on a monthly basis.

C. On October 19, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred USD 50,000 (Korean Won 56,720,000) to F, according to the Defendant’s instruction, and KRW 43,250,000 to the Defendant on October 20 of the same month.

Around January 2017, the Defendant: (a) received KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff on October 27, 2016; and (b) prepared a cash custody certificate with the purport that the Defendant would return the said KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff on March 20, 2017 (hereinafter “instant cash custody certificate”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1 to 5, Eul evidence 1 to 3, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment as to the main defense of this case is that the plaintiff and the defendant receive scams from the status of representative director C and E who planned and executed the public performance of this case. The plaintiff asserts that since the money transferred to the defendant is not a disposal authority, the plaintiff is not a disposal authority, and therefore there is no standing to be a party, the lawsuit of this case should be dismissed as illegal.

However, in the lawsuit of performance, the standing to be a party has the right to demand performance.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.11.15 2015나2072291

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.08 2017가합580182

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.17 2015가합534819

-수원지방법원 2020.05.21 2019가합17433

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.18 2014가합16246