logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2019.06.13 2018가단6862
청구이의
Text

1. The Defendant’s loan claim case No. 2018Gau523 against the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 27, 2018, the Defendant filed a lawsuit against the Plaintiff on the ground that “the Plaintiff was making a repayment period of KRW 30 million on April 30, 2009 to the Defendant with 10% interest rate fixed and lent at 10% per annum.” On February 27, 2018, the Defendant made a decision on performance recommendation (hereinafter “the instant decision”) stating that “the Plaintiff shall pay to the Defendant 30 million won and interest rate of KRW 35% per annum from the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint to the day of full payment.”

B. The instant decision was served on March 6, 2018 on the Plaintiff, and became final and conclusive on March 21, 2018 due to the Defendant’s failure to raise an objection.

[Evidence Evidence: Partial entry of Evidence No. 3 and the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Judgment on the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff (A) borrowed a total of KRW 15,50,000 from the Defendant around 2008, but, around 2009, the Plaintiff decided to operate a seat business with the Defendant and D operating the Defendant and C, and around 2011, pursuant to the agreement between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to offset the expenses incurred by the Plaintiff (land rent and expenses) and the Defendant’s loan amount of KRW 15,50,000,00, the obligation and obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant was terminated. The evidence Nos. 2 was written in the name of the Defendant and E in the name of the Defendant and E, and was not a loan certificate issued to Nonparty C while making a monetary transaction with the Defendant. In addition, there was no loan certificate issued by the Plaintiff for the Defendant. Accordingly, even if the Plaintiff did not exist in the Defendant’s daily account, compulsory execution pursuant to the instant decision should not be permitted. The Defendant’s decision regarding the loan and the loan claim in this case is inconsistent with the substantive legal relationship.

arrow