(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2016.03.24 2015가합105422

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) 서울남부지방법원 2016.03.24 2015가합105422

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

(b) the facts of the basis;

A. On June 2, 2008, the Plaintiff drafted the following contract with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant contract”).

The above parties agree with Gap (Defendant) and Eul (Plaintiff) to comply with the following provisions in order to enter into an agreement for the place of massage practice for the said parties:

* Trade name: Marine C (hereinafter referred to as “Marine” in this case.

* Place of business: The rental condition of Article 1 of Seocho-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government D is the condition that the loan amount of KRW 240,000,000 shall be lent to B and repaid twice.

Article 2: “A” shall lend 240,00,000 won to “A” in the amount corresponding to 15% of the shares in the C Ama place, and five to six months thereafter, “A” shall pay 80,000,000 won in the amount corresponding to 5% of the shares to “B” and “A” shall take over 5% in the amount corresponding to 10% of the remainder. In addition, “B” shall pay 160,000,000 won to “B” and take over 10% in the amount.

Article 3 Interest Section A shall pay the amount of profit corresponding to 15% to Section B after monthly settlement at the place of the massage procedure at which the profit is distributed, and the amount of profit corresponding to Section B shall also be terminated from the amount of profit when principal is repaid to Section B.

Two copies shall be prepared for certainty, and two copies shall be signed and sealed, and one copy shall be kept.

B. The Plaintiff paid KRW 240 million to the Defendant on the same day.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, entry in Gap evidence 1 and 2 (including branch numbers if there are branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff leased KRW 240 million to the Defendant in accordance with the instant contract, and received interest under the said contract until October 22, 2014, and KRW 39,375,000 on December 29, 2014, respectively. Therefore, the Defendant did not borrow money from the Defendant.

The defendant raised objection.

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2018.09.13 2017가합27703

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.25 2017가합33310

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.01.16 2017가단205723

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.01.16 2017가단205822

-인천지방법원 2018.02.02 2016가단57399