(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.10.17 2014가단18074

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) 서울남부지방법원 2014.10.17 2014가단18074

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 48 million and its relation to the Plaintiff’s KRW 5% per annum from September 1, 2006 to October 17, 2014, and from October 18, 2014.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. In around 2002, the Plaintiff entered into a business agreement with the Defendant residing in Uzbekistan, and when the Plaintiff invested funds, the Defendant purchased herb drugs from Uzbekistan to import them from Korea, and sold them to sell them and divide profits therefrom.

B. The plaintiff, after investing more than KRW 200 million in accordance with the above business agreement, was considered to have been damaged, requested a return of the amount invested by the defendant. On September 9, 2004, the defendant promised to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 50 million by the end of August 2004 with the amount of KRW 30 million paid up until August 2005.

The term “the first loan certificate” (hereinafter “this case”). C. The Defendant, after the lapse of August 2005, drafted a re-written loan certificate stating that the Plaintiff would have repaid KRW 2 million among the above money, and that the Plaintiff would have repaid the amount of KRW 48 million with the amount of KRW 48 million in August 2005, and thus, he would have repaid the loan again until August 2006, and thereafter the bank would have repaid the loan certificate (hereinafter “the second loan certificate of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the defendant entered into a quasi-loan agreement which stipulates that the amount invested by the plaintiff shall be the object of the loan for consumption by preparing the first and second loans of this case.

Therefore, the defendant sought payment from September 1, 2006, which is the day following the date on which the plaintiff agreed to pay the amount of the second proof of this case 48 million won, to the plaintiff from August 5, 2006, but as long as there is no other evidence that "til August 2006," the second proof of this case shall be deemed to be the end of August 2006, so the plaintiff's above assertion shall not be accepted.

The existence and scope of the Defendant’s obligation.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2012.11.15 2012고단525

-수원지방법원 2009. 12. 24. 선고 2009구합6842 판결

-수원지방법원 2014.01.17 2013나32618

-수원지방법원 2008. 08. 27. 선고 2008구합540 판결

-서울행정법원 2013. 08. 30. 선고 2012구합35986 판결