logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2016.03.24 2015가단43863
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's KRW 40,300,000 and about this, 5% per annum from March 29, 2006 to March 24, 2016 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In addition to the overall purport of the pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the respective descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, and 6 regarding the cause of the claim:

On December 16, 2005, the Plaintiff lent KRW 40 million to C, which was the husband of the Defendant, by account transfer.

This is because the defendant and C have forged the lease contract under the name of D in order to join the plaintiff, and presented it as true, and the plaintiff believed it.

As a result, the defendants were indicted for summary crimes such as fraud in the Jung-gu District Court (2006 High Court approximately 206 High Court Decision 20692) and issued a summary order of KRW 3 million each, and the above order became final and conclusive on January 18, 2007.

On December 21, 2005, after receiving the transfer of KRW 40 million as above, the Defendant, on December 21, 2005, prepared and delivered to the Plaintiff a letter of payment stating that “The Plaintiff borrowed KRW 52 million from the Plaintiff by means of forging real estate lease agreement as in C and obtaining a false call from the Plaintiff who is the owner of a house, and would pay the above KRW 52 million by December 27, 2005.”

In addition, on December 21, 2005, the Defendant made to the Plaintiff a promissory note with respect to the above KRW 52 million, and on February 13, 2006, a notary public made a notarial deed as to the said promissory note under No. 228 of 2006.

According to the above facts, the defendant, along with C, expressed his new intent to complete the payment of KRW 52 million in excess of the above money by acquiring 40 million by deceiving the plaintiff, and then preparing the above payment note to the plaintiff.

Ultimately, it is interpreted that the Defendant agreed to pay to the Plaintiff a new debt burden of KRW 52 million in accordance with the above payment note.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff was paid out of KRW 52 million to the Plaintiff on January 25, 2006; (b) KRW 400,000,000 on January 20, 2006; (c) KRW 80,000 on February 10, 2006; (d) KRW 250,000 on March 3, 2006; and (e) KRW 60,000 on March 10, 206; and (e) KRW 700,00 on March 15, 2006.

arrow