logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원(춘천) 2019.12.04 2019나50975
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff prepared a contract for lending money and payment of interest, and an agreement on lending money and payment of interest, with the purport of lending money five times as set forth below, with the executives and employees affiliated with F (F; hereinafter “F”).

(1) A person who is named as a guarantor and entered in the loan agreement as of January 2, 2017, the interest rate of the loan (won) interest rate of which has been set at 50,000,000 as of January 2, 2017, Defendant 2, 110,000 B, and Defendant 110,000,000 as of February 27, 2017, and Defendant 4, September 13, 2017, 13,000,000 (Defendant 4, September 13, 200,00,000, and October 8, 2018, respectively, as of September 17, 2017;

B. The Plaintiff concluded the instant contract and accordingly transferred KRW 110 million to the account in the Defendant’s name on January 3, 2017.

C. Upon entering into the instant contract, the Plaintiff decided to increase the loan amount of KRW 110 million, including KRW 100 million, which was lent to B on February 29, 2016, and transferred KRW 10 million to B’s account in the name of B on February 27, 2017.

On the other hand, the instant contract is KRW 150 million that the Plaintiff lent to B on December 9, 2015, and the instant contract is KRW 13 million that the Plaintiff transferred to E’s account on May 17, 2017. The Plaintiff concluded the instant contract and transferred KRW 7 million to E’s account on September 1, 2017.

【No dispute over the grounds for recognition】 The defendant asserts that Gap's evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 6 through 9, 21, 28, Gap's evidence Nos. 3, 5, 26, and 27 are affixed with the defendant's seal in the guarantor column of the agreement on the lending of money and the payment of interest, and that the defendant was unaware of the fact that he was written as the guarantor. However, as examined below, the defendant stated in each of the above agreements as the guarantor and affixed his official seal thereon.

arrow