(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.24 2014나7727

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.24 2014나7727

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant in excess of the money ordered to be paid below is revoked.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the facts of recognition is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, this part is cited by the main text of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. The court's explanation of this part of the parties' assertion is the same as the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

3. Determination

A. (1) The interpretation of a declaration of intent to determine a payment obligation under the instant repayment agreement clearly establishes the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating it. In the event that the content of a contract is written between the parties as a disposal document, the objective meaning that the parties gave to the act of indicating it shall be reasonably interpreted according to the contents of the written agreement, regardless of the party’s internal intent, even though not being bound by the written agreement. In this case, if the objective meaning of the text is clear, the existence and content of the declaration of intent shall be recognized according to the language, barring special circumstances.

(2) According to the facts acknowledged in paragraph (1) (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da92487, May 13, 2010) and the testimony of witness C of the first instance trial, C demanded that the Defendant pay the loan amounting to KRW 170,00,000 on or around June 2010, and that the Defendant would be liable for the amount of KRW 100,000,000; C demanded that the Plaintiff assist the Plaintiff for the prompt repayment of the loan amount; C demanded the reimbursement agreement of this case to the Defendant instead of accepting it; C was present in the place where the Defendant used the instant repayment agreement; C did not have a title holder; and 4,50,000,000 that was paid to the Plaintiff three times, but it can be recognized that the Defendant paid the loan amount.

(3) In full view of these circumstances based on the legal principles as seen earlier, the instant case.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2010. 5. 13. 선고 2009다92487 판결

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2018.06.28 2017나64951

-서울고등법원 2015.12.24 2015나15445

-대구지방법원 2019.05.08 2018나7588

-대법원 2015.03.12 2013다79740

-수원지방법원 2015.12.03 2015나14775