(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.11.14 2018가합114943

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.11.14 2018가합114943

청구이의

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 17, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant drafted a loan certificate stating that KRW 50,000,000 shall be extended to the Plaintiff on August 3, 2016 (hereinafter “the first loan for consumption”) with the due date set by the Defendant, and that KRW 50,000 shall be transferred to the Plaintiff on the same day.

B. On October 27, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant: (a) around December 15, 2016, prepared a loan certificate stating that the Defendant’s repayment period of KRW 150,000,000 to the Plaintiff is due on December 15, 2016; (b) the interest rate is 10% per annum; (c) and (d) remitted to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 each on October 24, 2016, including the first and second loan agreement; and (e) the first and second loan agreement; and (e) the Defendant remitted to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 50,00,000 on October 27, 2016.

C. On June 2, 2017, the Defendant filed an application with the Plaintiff for the instant payment order, and the Seoul Eastern District Court rendered the instant payment order accepting the Defendant’s entire application on June 13, 2017, and the instant payment order was finalized on July 1, 2017.

[Ground for Recognition: Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 and 2 (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply)

(2) Each entry and the purport of the whole pleading

2. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. The actual party to the loan agreement of this case is the Plaintiff and C (hereinafter “C”) and C (hereinafter “C”), and C’s lending of money to the Plaintiff operating the hospital would be likely to mislead the Plaintiff into the offering of rebates, thereby lending KRW 200,000 to the third party’s name to avoid this.

Therefore, the actual creditor of the loan claim amounting to KRW 200,000 is C, and the defendant is merely a nominal lender, and the defendant does not have any obligation against the plaintiff, and the loan contract of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is null and void as a false declaration of agreement.

B. The defendant is the spouse of D, the representative director of C, and is the actual party to the loan contract of this case.

3. Determination

A. Relevant legal principles.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.18 2018가합102507

-광주지방법원 2015.03.03 2014가단21071

-서울남부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가합104983

-대구지방법원 2016.08.10 2015가단43704

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.10.27 2017가합512332