logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2020.08.13 2019가단20982
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 12% per annum from November 15, 2019 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to the purport of each of the statements and arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 5 as to the plaintiff's cause of action, the plaintiff may recognize the fact that he/she lent KRW 50,000,00 to the defendant on January 26, 2017.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 50,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from November 15, 2019 to the day of full payment following the delivery of the payment order of this case to the plaintiff.

2. On January 26, 2017, the Defendant agreed to receive KRW 100,000 as down payment when concluding a mechanical sales contract for selling power generators, etc. to C on the part of the Defendant. On the same day, the Plaintiff guaranteed the obligation under the above contract against the Defendant, and then transferred KRW 50,00,000 to the Defendant as part of the said down payment, the Plaintiff’s claim is groundless.

According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments as follows: Gap evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 1, Eul evidence No. 2-1, and Eul evidence No. 2-2; according to the purport of the whole pleadings, the defendant agreed on Jan. 26, 2017 to receive KRW 100,000,000 upon entering into a mechanical sales contract for selling power generators, etc. to Eul; on the same day, the plaintiff guaranteed the above contractual obligation to the defendant; on Jan. 26, 2017, it is recognized that the plaintiff remitted KRW 50,00,00 to the defendant on Jan. 26, 2017; however, it is difficult to conclude that the plaintiff paid the above money to the defendant as part of the down payment, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this.

Therefore, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow