(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가단116167

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 2020.02.12 2019가단116167

투자금반환 청구의 독촉사건

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 140,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from October 10, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

Basic Facts

Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, it can be acknowledged that the plaintiff invested KRW 140,000,000 with the defendant on September 25, 2017 as the introduction of Eul (hereinafter referred to as "the non-party") and the plaintiff made an investment contract with the defendant on September 25, 2017 that guarantees the repayment of investment principal and interest on the second part of each month (hereinafter referred to as "investment contract in this case"), and accordingly, the plaintiff remitted the amount of KRW 10,000 to the defendant on September 27, 2017.

The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is liable as a party to the investment contract of this case and sought payment of the above investment amount of KRW 140,000,000 and interest thereon.

As to this, the Defendant asserts to the effect that the actual party to the instant investment contract is not the Defendant but the Nonparty.

As to whom the actor and the other party to the contract are the parties to the contract in cases where the actor and the other party agreed to do a juristic act in the name of another person, the parties to the contract shall be determined by the agreement, first of all, in cases where the intent of the actor and the other party is in accord. If the other party does not coincide with the intent of the actor and the other party, based on the specific circumstances before and after the conclusion of the contract, including the nature, content, and purpose of the contract, the other party shall be determined by whom the actor and the nominal owner, among

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2013Da97670, 97687, Jun. 12, 2014). Therefore, who is a party to a contract constitutes a matter of interpreting the intent of the party involved in the contract.

The interpretation of declaration of intention clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties have given to the act of indication.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.02.12 2019가단116167

-서울고등법원 2019.05.23 2018나2045399

-광주지방법원해남지원 2015.10.22 2015가단1243

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.08.08 2017가단8962

-부산지방법원 2016.11.24 2016나6115