logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2020.09.23 2020가단243468
대여금
Text

The defendant shall pay 37,300,000 won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from May 13, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings as to the entries in Gap 1 through 3, the defendant prepared a loan certificate stating that the plaintiff will deposit KRW 43,500,000 in one month with the loan amount of KRW 200,000 (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) and paid the plaintiff a sum of KRW 6,200,000 per month from February 20 to June 7, 2013.

2. Determination

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The defendant lent KRW 43,50,000 to the plaintiff on January 201, 201 and received the loan certificate of this case. Thus, the plaintiff is obligated to pay the plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 37,300,00 (= KRW 43,500,000 – KRW 6,200,00) and damages for delay. The defendant's assertion 2) although the plaintiff borrowed money from the plaintiff on several occasions before 2010 for living expenses, although the loan amount of KRW 43,50,00,00 from the plaintiff's house did not reach KRW 43,50,000, the loan certificate of this case was made at the plaintiff's strong pressure, and the plaintiff's assertion is unjust since it did not deduct the amount of the loan amount even though the plaintiff did not deduct it.

B. Determination 1) We examine the following facts: (a) there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact that the instant loan certificate was drafted by the Plaintiff’s coercion; and (b) if the authenticity of the disposal document is recognized, the court shall, in principle, recognize the existence of declaration of intent and its contents in accordance with the language stated in the disposal document, unless there is any clear and acceptable counter-proof that denies the contents of the statement (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2004Da60065, May 27, 2005); and (c) considering the overall purport of the pleadings in Gap 1, the Defendant may recognize the fact that he borrowed KRW 43.5 million to the Plaintiff around January 2010, and barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is liable to pay the Plaintiff KRW 37,300,000 and delay damages therefrom, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant.

arrow