(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.03.29 2017가단218986

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) 인천지방법원 2018.03.29 2017가단218986

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 20, 2008, the Plaintiff settled a claim and debt relationship between C and C, which had been engaged in financial transactions prior to the said date, and completed a cash custody certificate (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) with the purport that KRW 100 million shall be repaid until August 20, 2008. At that time, C was returned KRW 35 million out of the said money.

B. On April 6, 2011, the Plaintiff: (a) as between the Defendant and C, and the Defendant exempted the Plaintiff from liability KRW 50 million among the Defendant’s obligations to the Plaintiff; (b) drafted a performance agreement (hereinafter “instant performance agreement”) and the instant performance agreement (hereinafter “instant performance agreement”); and (c) on April 7, 2011, the following day, C drafted and issued a receipt (hereinafter “the instant receipt”) with respect to KRW 25 million (the principal amount of KRW 15 million) to the Plaintiff without setting the due date.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against C seeking payment of the remaining claim KRW 65 million based on the cash custody certificate of this case.

(Da) The Plaintiff asserted that the instant performance agreement was void on the date of the preparation of the instant performance agreement in the instant lawsuit, while the Defendant appeared and testified to the same effect as a witness in the instant lawsuit, the said court rendered a judgment that the instant performance agreement cannot be revoked and valid in light of the description, etc. of the receipt of the instant case written following the preparation of the instant performance agreement, and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5 through 8, Eul evidence No. 1 (including additional numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is seeking payment of KRW 50 million to the Defendant in accordance with the instant performance agreement.

However, the foregoing.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2018.01.11 2017가합200409

-대전지방법원 2021.04.22 2019가단130477

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.01.31 2018가합50370

-인천지방법원 2020.01.14 2018가단264337

-서울서부지방법원 2015.10.14 2015가단8851