logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2018.01.25 2017나19441
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. On May 17, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 230 million to the Defendant on May 17, 2012, setting the due date for reimbursement as of May 17, 2013 (hereinafter “first loan”), and was not repaid KRW 113 million among them.

In addition, on July 26, 2012, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 100 million to the Defendant.

(hereinafter “Secondary Loan”). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 213 million and damages for delay.

[Plaintiff’s “The amount of the Plaintiff’s repayment” as indicated in the attached Table “The Plaintiff’s performance” column was repaid as part of the loans Nos. 1 and 2,00,000 won in the first and second instances, but did not reduce the purport of the claim.

The obligor of the Defendant’s second loan is the same birth of the Defendant, not the Defendant, and the Defendant paid a sum of KRW 231,500,000 to the Plaintiff or the Plaintiff’s wife through the Defendant’s parent as indicated in attached Table 1.

2. Determination

A. The fact that the Plaintiff lent the first and second loans to the Defendant does not conflict between the parties, or that there is no evidence to acknowledge whether the second loans were lent, even though it is recognized by the statement of evidence No. 1.

(A) The obligor of the second loan shall be C, and the guarantor shall be D even if based on the statement of the evidence No. 10-3. Therefore, the defendant shall be liable to pay the remaining amount of the first loan to the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances to the contrary.

B. First of all the remaining debts of the first loan, the following circumstances acknowledged by the Defendant’s assertion as follows, namely, the Defendant and C, each of the obligors of the first and second loans, are E and D’s children, and the content of the Defendant’s assertion as to the deposit of E and D, who are not the debtor of the first loan or the guarantor, are as follows:

arrow