logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2015.01.14 2014나5209
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 16, 2006, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant. On December 1, 2006, the Defendant indicated that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff as of January 1, 2006, stating that “No. 1-2 of the loan certificate A and at the bottom of the above loan certificate are “one month and two months calculated.”

A) The Defendant’s name was written, and on December 22, 2006, the loan certificate (No. 1-3) signed and sealed by the Defendant on January 22, 2007, stating that the Defendant borrowed KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff on the due date for payment and on January 22, 2007. B. The Defendant repaid the Plaintiff KRW 17 million in total on 17 occasions from October 31, 2006 to October 3, 2013. [based on recognition] without dispute, the Plaintiff’s evidence Nos. 1 and 5 (including each number, the result of the appraiser’s appraisal of seals C of the first instance trial, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a whole.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff loaned total of KRW 30 million to the Defendant on October 16, 2006, KRW 10 million on December 1, 2006, KRW 10 million on December 1, 2006, KRW 20 million on December 22, 2006, and KRW 17 million on December 22, 2006. Since the Plaintiff was paid KRW 17 million from the Defendant, the Defendant must pay KRW 13 million to the Plaintiff.

B. On October 16, 2006, the Defendant borrowed only KRW 10 million from the Plaintiff (a certificate No. 1-2 of December 1, 2006 is a certificate of borrowing on October 16, 2006, and the certificate of borrowing on December 22, 2006 (a certificate No. 1-3 of December 3 of 2006) was completely repaid by the Defendant.

3. Determination

A. In a case where a written statement is made between the lender and the lender on December 1, 2006, which is a disposal document, and where the objective meaning of the text is clear, barring any special circumstance, the existence of the expression of intent and its contents should be recognized (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da72572, May 24, 2002). The above recognized facts and the following circumstances revealed from the above recognized facts, namely, the amount of KRW 17 million that the Defendant discharged to the Plaintiff.

arrow