logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2020.04.10 2019가단28270
채무부존재확인
Text

1. The Plaintiff’s notary public C office against the Defendant is based on a notarial deed No. 1263 of 2014, November 13, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On November 13, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed for a loan for consumption as stated in Paragraph (1) of this Article (hereinafter “notarial deed for a loan for consumption”) stating that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 80 million from the Defendant at 25% per annum and due date on June 30, 2015, and issued it to the Defendant.

B. From July 1, 2015, the Defendant: (a) decided to jointly operate the restaurant “E” (hereinafter, this case’s restaurant) in Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu, Seo-gu; (b) and (c) drafted a partnership agreement with the content that the ratio of ownership shall be 50% to 50%, and that the monthly distribution shall be 2.3 million won to the Defendant until June 2015 (hereinafter, the instant partnership agreement).

In the instant business agreement, until the end of June 2015, there was an agreement that the Plaintiff would accept all business rights of the instant restaurant if the Plaintiff pays KRW 80,000 to the Defendant.

C. The Plaintiff paid KRW 2,300,000 per month by the end of June, 2015, and deposited KRW 80,000 in the Defendant’s name account (F) on July 2, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3 evidence, Eul evidence 2 to 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff asserted that: (a) on July 2, 2015, the Plaintiff repaid to the Defendant all of the borrowed principal of KRW 80,000 and interest based on the instant loan deed; (b) the instant loan agreement was made for the purpose of securing the borrowed amount; and (c) thus, the said agreement

Therefore, the Plaintiff seeks confirmation of the absence of each of the above obligations against the Defendant, and the return of KRW 1,1970,000 as the amount equivalent to the interest paid by the Plaintiff to the Defendant in excess of the limited interest rate prescribed in the Interest Limitation Act from November 2014 to June 2016 (i.e., calculation: (i) : (ii) : (iii) - interest rate of KRW 2.3 million - interest rate of KRW 1.670,00 within the scope of the limited interest rate under the Interest

B. (1) First, according to the evidence cited earlier, the Plaintiff’s completion of the instant borrowed notarial deed on July 2, 2017, immediately after the maturity date of the instant borrowed notarial deed.

arrow