(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.12.15 2017나2025794

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) 서울고등법원 2017.12.15 2017나2025794

대여금 등 반환 청구의 소

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff married with C and maintained an internal relationship with the Defendant from around October 2016 to around October 2016.

B. On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff paid KRW 140 million to the Defendant. On June 17, 2013, the Defendant began to acquire and operate the Lestop (hereinafter “instant Lestop”).

C. On September 19, 2014, the Plaintiff issued a promissory note (hereinafter “first promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 180 million as of November 30, 2014, the date of payment to the Defendant. On the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of a promissory note with a law firm No. 696 on the same day.

On September 30, 2014, the Plaintiff paid KRW 90 million to the Defendant.

On November 7, 2014, the Plaintiff received a return of the said promissory note from the Defendant, and issued to the Defendant a promissory note (hereinafter “second promissory note”) with a face value of KRW 500 million as of March 31, 2015, and on the same day, a notary public drafted a notarial deed of a promissory note (the same shall apply to the notarial deed of a promissory note as indicated in the attached Table; hereinafter “instant promissory note”).

From November 28, 2014 to September 30, 2016, the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 260,045,000 to the Defendant.

The plaintiff asserts that he paid KRW 50 million to the defendant in cash around December 2014, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap's 1 through 6 evidence, Eul's 47 and 48 evidence (including each number; hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings and arguments

2. Determination on the claim for return of loan

A. On June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff leased KRW 140 million to the Defendant on the part of June 14, 2013, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay that amount to the Plaintiff.

B. Determination 1: (a) on June 14, 2013, the Plaintiff rendered a judgment to the Defendant KRW 140 million.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.10 2016가합37891

-서울서부지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가합38191

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2014.12.03 2014가합51725

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.11.24 2015가합543615

-서울고등법원 2016.04.22 2015나2055784