(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.02 2014가단170808

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 2015.04.02 2014가단170808

대여금반환

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from September 2, 2013 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 100 million to Defendant B’s account on May 1, 2013.

B. The following agreement was drawn up between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B as follows:

Article 1 Loans Loans Loans Loans made by Party A (referring to the Plaintiff) to Party B (referring to Defendant B) shall be in KRW 00,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won.

(Transfer of Mortgage and Loan shall be made in the name of B) Article 2 (Period of Lease and Loan Interest Rate) The amount of loan made by Party A to Party B shall be borrowed from May 2, 2013 to the dividend day after the successful bid of the above case. The interest rate shall be 3% per month.

(b)

C. On November 27, 2013, the Defendants drafted to the Plaintiff a letter of performance as follows.

The amounts set forth above shall be borrowed from A on 2 May 2013, 2013, which shall be KRW 100,000 (W10,000,000), and Party B shall have agreed with B to repay KRW 0,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,00,00

2. As to the assertion and judgment, the Plaintiff jointly and severally sought a loan of KRW 100 million and the agreed interest to the Defendants in accordance with the above investment agreement and the performance certificate, the Defendant asserts that the said amount is an investment deposit, and thus, the Defendant does not have any obligation to return

However, according to the above investment agreement, it is true that the expression "investment" or "investment and operating expenses" in some of the title and content is contained. However, it is reasonable to view that Defendant B expressed its intent to return the principal and pay the agreed interest within the time limit to the Plaintiff. The written statement in subparagraphs 1 through 4 above alone is insufficient to reverse the above recognition, and there is no other counter-proof.

3. Conclusion

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.16 2014가합41099

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.05.29 2018가단806

-서울서부지방법원 2017.10.13 2016가단254620

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.29 2014가합41129

-창원지방법원통영지원 2019.11.13 2018가단26870