logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.07 2017가단5187666
청구이의
Text

1. The defendant's compulsory execution against the plaintiff in Seoul Central District Court 2017 tea 37287 is denied.

2...

Reasons

The Defendant is a company engaging in real estate development and its execution business, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant entered into a sales agency contract for sales in lots on July 28, 2010, and the Plaintiff terminated the above contract on July 5, 2012, and on July 5, 2012, the Defendant’s loan of KRW 60,780,00 to the Plaintiff on July 5, 2012 as the cause of the claim that the Defendant lent KRW 60,780,00 to the Plaintiff (the date of payment was December 30, 2012) was issued on August 25, 2017 and the payment order was finalized on August 25, 2017, does not conflict between the parties.

There is no evidence to prove that the defendant lent the same money as the above loan certificate to the plaintiff company in addition to the fees under the sale agency contract.

In addition, according to the statement No. 3, the debtor column of the loan certificate as of July 5, 2012 asserted by the defendant is not the plaintiff company but only the name and the personal address of the plaintiff representative director D.

In the debtor column of the above loan certificate, the defendant stated that "D shall be paid immediately when Article 4 of the certificate of vicarious sale of buildings in connection with the above loan certificate is not fulfilled," although the name of D is written in the debtor column of the above loan certificate, it is a simple clerical error that the above loan certificate is written in writing, and the actual lender claims that "D shall be the debtor of the above loan certificate, and the actual lender is the plaintiff company."

However, according to the statements of evidence Nos. 3, 4, and 5, among two contracts signed on the same day when the contract for the sale of buildings in units is terminated, the promise for the sale of buildings in units is made to the name and address of the plaintiff company, while the above certificate of loan contains the name and personal address of the D individual.

arrow