logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.08.27 2014가단45567
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from March 20, 2010 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff transferred KRW D (hereinafter “D”), KRW 20,000,000 on April 13, 2009, and KRW 30,000 on May 6, 2009, respectively.

B. On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate from D as follows (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”). The Defendants and E signed the said loan certificate on the joint and several surety column.

Interest on January 19, 2010: (a) on a loan certificate of KRW 50,00,000: (b) on a loan of KRW 2% per month; (c) on August 20, 2009; (d) on a loan of KRW 50,000: (c) on a loan of KRW 2% per month; and (d) on a deposit basis: 1, Defendant C;

2. E,

2. Facts that there is no dispute over the defendant B [applicable for recognition], entries in Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 2 (including provisional number), and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. On August 20, 2009, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50,000,00 to D on January 19, 2010, with the interest rate of KRW 2% per annum and KRW 7,000,000 for seven months from August 20, 200 to March 19, 2010, and the Plaintiff was paid KRW 7,00,000 from D. Thus, the Defendants, a joint and several surety, jointly and severally, are liable to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delay damages at a rate of 50,00,000 per annum from March 20 to the day of full payment.

B. Defendants 1) D did not borrow KRW 50,000,000 from the Plaintiff, but was invested, so it did not have any obligation to return KRW 50,00,000 to the Plaintiff. The Defendants, a joint and several surety of D, also do not have any obligation to return KRW 50,00,00 to the Plaintiff. 2) The Defendants believed that the Plaintiff lent KRW 50,000 to D, and jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation. Since the Plaintiff did not lend KRW 50,00,000 to D, the Defendants’ joint and several surety act was revoked on the grounds of mistake or fraud.

3. If the Plaintiff’s claim is accepted, the Plaintiff’s husband and D’s representative director who were the Plaintiff’s husband and the Plaintiff’s representative director may in fact recover the investment amount, unlike other investors, which is not permissible under the good faith principle

3. Determination. (a)

arrow