(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.10.31 2017가단9739

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 2017.10.31 2017가단9739

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 40,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from January 1, 2017 to April 10, 2017; and (b) the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On January 8, 2015, the Plaintiff’s statement No. 1 (the Defendant asserted that it was invalid or revoked by coercion, but the testimony by the witness C alone is insufficient to recognize it, and there is no other evidence to prove it), in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, as a whole, on the part of the Defendant:

1.9.

1. The fact that the Defendant remitted a total of KRW 9 million to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2015, and that the Defendant agreed to pay the remainder of KRW 45 million to the Plaintiff on August 8, 2016 on the last day of December 2016, and that the Defendant paid KRW 5 million on October 28, 2015 does not conflict between the parties.

As to the nature of the above money, the Plaintiff asserted that it is a loan and the Defendant’s investment. On the other hand, even if the Plaintiff was to make an investment, it is deemed that the Plaintiff sought payment of the above money pursuant to the agreement on August 8, 2015, and as seen earlier, it is not recognized that the evidence No. 1 was made by coercion. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of 4 million won and 5% per annum from January 1, 2017 to April 10, 2017, and 15% per annum from the next day to the date of repayment.

2. The defendant asserts that the plaintiff and the defendant jointly operate D as one-half shares, and as a result, 142,398,918 won was incurred as a result of the above joint operation, and thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay KRW 71,199,459 to the defendant among them, and that the plaintiff is obligated to return five million won received from the defendant against the above joint operation agreement.

However, according to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, even if the above amount was invested, the defendant agreed to pay it by accepting the plaintiff's request for return, and it was already implemented on October 28, 2015, and thus, the settlement of joint operation agreement was completed at the time. Thus, it cannot be claimed for the burden of losses under the above joint operation agreement or for the return of the amount already performed.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2017.12.26 2017가단110950

-서울북부지방법원 2019.01.29 2018가단2711

-서울북부지방법원 2017.08.08 2017가단116361

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.03.30 2015가단84497

-창원지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단4726