(영문) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.15 2016가단2303

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) 춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.15 2016가단2303

대여금

Text

1. All of the plaintiff's claims are dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that the plaintiff delivered the defendant a total face value of KRW 80 million to the defendant, and the defendant did not pay the balance to the plaintiff by paying only KRW 13.8 million.

Therefore, since the Plaintiff cancels the check and the bill issuance contract of this case, the Defendant is primarily obligated to return the check and the bill to the Plaintiff to its original state, and if it is impossible to return it, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 66.2 million to the Plaintiff in preliminary form.

2. According to the overall purport of the statement and pleading by the Plaintiff from January 2010, the Defendant: (a) from around the Plaintiff’s request, the number of shares and promissory notes discounted issued by the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant issued by the Plaintiff on September 20, 2013; (c) the Defendant issued the Plaintiff on September 20, 2013; (d) the number of shares per check number C; (b) the date of issuance; (c) the number of shares per check number D; (d) the number of shares on August 5, 2013; (e) the number of shares on August 7, 2013; (e) the date of issuance; (e) the number of shares per check number D; and (e) the number of shares per check number issued by the Plaintiff on January 15, 2014; and (e) the number of promissory notes issued at KRW 57,200,000; and (e) the list and promissory notes issued as collateral.

According to the above facts, it is reasonable to view that the Defendant lent money to the Plaintiff as collateral for the instant check and bill, and as long as there is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff paid a loan to a person interested in the cause, the Plaintiff does not have the right to seek the return of the instant check and bill. Thus, the Plaintiff’s primary claim is without merit, and the conjunctive claim based on the premise that the return of the instant check and bill cannot be returned to the Plaintiff is without merit.

3. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2016.11.15 2015가단5800

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2017.10.31 2016나1370

-서울고등법원 2015.12.17 2015나2003776

-인천지방법원 2014.12.23 2013가합35890

-광주지방법원 2013.02.21 2012고정2691