(영문) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.12.22 2016가단12423

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) 대전지방법원천안지원 2016.12.22 2016가단12423

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 98,439,380 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 29, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant on April 24, 2006. In this regard, on July 24, 2006, the Defendant: (a) delivered to the Plaintiff a promissory note drawn up on July 24, 2006 with a face value of KRW 100,000,000,000; (b) the issuer; (c) the date of payment on July 24, 2006; (d) October 30, 2006; (e) the place of payment; and (e) the place of payment (hereinafter “instant promissory note”); (e) the Defendant is a person who has issued the said promissory note, written name, and sealed the compulsory execution; and (e) made a notarized deed (C Notaries Joint Office No. 3269, 206; hereinafter “notarial deed of this case”).

B. The Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 1,560,620 from the Defendant’s auction procedure for corporeal movables (Seoul District Court Decision 2012No. 2964) to cover the principal.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, Gap's evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Determination:

A. The plaintiff alleged that the plaintiff lent KRW 100,00,000 to the defendant. Accordingly, the defendant asserted that the above money constitutes illegal consideration since the plaintiff invested in the illegal game room business (D). Thus, the plaintiff cannot seek the return of the above money.

B. The facts acknowledged prior to and adopted evidence as to the plaintiff's cause of claim 1, and the statements in Gap evidence No. 3, which are acknowledged by adding the whole purport of pleading to the plaintiff's whole purport, namely, if the plaintiff's 100,000,000 investment funds issued to the defendant, the agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant on the ratio of profit distribution and the timing of payment of investment profits, etc. is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant as to the contents of the above investment agreement. The defendant did not at all assert specific arguments as to the contents of the above investment agreement, and made an investment without the return agreement at the time of the plaintiff's payment to the defendant

Even in this case, at least.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.21 2016가단56715

-서울고등법원 2015.07.22 2014나2035004

-대구지방법원 2019.11.07 2018나313986

-대전지방법원천안지원 2016.11.04 2014가합101838

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.06.28 2016가단106160