logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2014.04.25 2013가합100753
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants: (a) KRW 100,161,095 for each Plaintiff and KRW 7% per annum from July 3, 2008 to April 25, 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 27, 2008, the Defendants: (a) borrowed KRW 140,00,000 from the Plaintiff on a yearly basis; and (b) on June 30, 2009, Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation to the Plaintiff; (c) drafted and issued a monetary loan certificate (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”).

B. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 140,000,000 to Defendant B.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff lent KRW 140,00,000 to Defendant B with interest rate of KRW 7% per annum and due date of payment on June 30, 2009. Defendant C guaranteed Defendant C’s above loan obligation against the Plaintiff. The Defendants did not pay the above loan even after the due date of the loan was expired. Thus, the Defendants are liable to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 140,000,000 and the interest or delay damages from June 27, 2008.

B. The Defendants asserted that they purchased real estate jointly with D and E, the Plaintiff’s error, and subsequently agreed to divide profits by disposing of the said real estate. They invested in the said real estate by E, who had no money to invest in the said real estate, borrowed KRW 140,00,000 from the Plaintiff.

However, since the Plaintiff requires the Defendants to deliver a loan certificate, the Defendants formally prepared and provided the instant loan certificate (No. 1) to the Plaintiff.

Ultimately, the above KRW 140,00,000 has been lent by the plaintiff to E, a plaintiff, and E has invested the above money to the defendants. Thus, the defendants are not obliged to pay the above KRW 140,000,000 to the plaintiff.

3. Inasmuch as the determination document is recognized as a authenticity of its formation, the court shall render its contents with clear and acceptable statements, unless there is any counter-proof to the contrary.

arrow