logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2017.08.29 2016가합206228
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 250,000,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 31, 2012 to October 28, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. E, the representative of C Co., Ltd., was the Defendant’s director from November 11, 2008, and at the time, the Defendant appears to have supported and cooperateed with C Co., Ltd. with the sand industry. The Plaintiff was jointly and severally guaranteed a loan of KRW 250,000,000 from a foreign exchange bank (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On May 28, 2009, the Plaintiff subrogated to the foreign exchange bank for KRW 250,225,452 as the principal and interest obligation of this case.

C. On June 1, 2009, the Defendant agreed to pay KRW 250,000,000 to the Plaintiff, preparing a loan certificate with the following content:

(hereinafter referred to as the “Agreement”). The borrowed amount of KRW 250,000,000 (hereinafter referred to as 250,000) shall have been securedly borrowed and promised to perform the following obligations:

1. The principal shall become due and payable until July 30, 2012;

2. Interest is nonexistent, and there is no dispute over the plaintiff Eul's representative director D (Reasons for Recognition). The defendant's evidence Nos. 1 through 4 [No. 4 (Evidence No. 4)] stated that the defendant's seal affixed to the above document is not the defendant's seal impression, but the defendant's seal affixed to Gap's evidence No. 6 (Evidence No. 4) is the defendant's employee seal impression at the time of the date of pleading No. 4, and the defendant stated that the defendant's seal affixed to Gap's evidence No. 6 (Evidence No. 6) is the defendant's seal impression at the time of pleading No. 201, April 2, 2017. In this regard, the defendant's statement that the defendant's representative D's seal affixed to Gap's evidence No. 6 was not corrected in the pleading, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Accordingly, the defendant's seal affixed to Gap's evidence No. 4 and No. 6 are the same as the defendant's seal affixed to the above evidence No. 4].

2. The cause of the action.

arrow