logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2015.07.17 2014나33509
대여금반환
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff corresponding to the money ordered to be paid below shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with G companies located in Uzbekistan (hereinafter “G”) to import 108,000 kilograms of Won from USD 273,600.

(hereinafter “instant contract”). (b)

On March 22, 2013, the Plaintiff drafted a monetary loan agreement stating that “The Plaintiff shall transfer USD 21,600 to the Defendant’s account in the name of the Defendant,” and that “The Plaintiff shall lend USD 21,600 to the Defendant at a rate of 6.9% per annum from March 25, 2013 to June 30, 2013, and at an interest rate of 24% per annum” (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff remitted USD 21,600 to the Defendant’s account under the Defendant’s name. On March 27, 2013, the Defendant wired USD 10,000 to the account under the name of F and E, the representative director of G.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 2-1, 2, Evidence Nos. 8 and 9-2, the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination:

A. There is no dispute between the parties as to the fact that USD 21,00, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant, was sent as an advance payment for the price for goods under the instant contract.

B. As to the formation of the instant agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the defendant asserted that the agreement was prepared formally as a means to pay the plaintiff's goods to G, and thus constitutes a false conspiracy and thus null and void. Accordingly, the plaintiff asserted that the above remitted money was made up to the meaning that the defendant would return the money if it is not paid to G.

In this case, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant prepared the instant agreement in order to guarantee the payment of the money remitted from the Plaintiff to G, and therefore, the Defendant is obligated to return the portion of the said remitted money not paid to G to the Plaintiff.

C. The defendant is based on the contract of this case.

arrow