(영문) 창원지방법원 2016.05.25 2015나10206

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) 창원지방법원 2016.05.25 2015나10206

대여금

Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, KRW 22,480,00 against the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s objection thereto from April 12, 2014 to May 25, 2016.

Reasons

1.The following facts are not disputed between the parties or may be admitted by entry in Gap evidence 1 to 5:

On December 1, 2012, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30 million to the Defendant, and was handed over from the Defendant one promissory note with the same amount as the security for the loan, and the DMW 520D vehicles owned by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant vehicle”).

2. Determination on this safety defense

A. On August 26, 2013, the Defendant: (a) concluded a written agreement with the Plaintiff on August 23, 2013, stating that “the instant vehicle-related issues shall be dealt with under the agreement between E and the Plaintiff, and the Defendant shall not be held liable for civil or criminal liability; (b) so, the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case shall be dismissed in an unlawful manner; (c) however, the said agreement is merely about the theft of the instant vehicle, and cannot be deemed to be related to the loan, which is the cause of the instant claim; and therefore, (d) the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. In addition, on October 6, 2015, the Defendant withdrawn the instant lawsuit between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on October 6, 2015, and did not file any objection or civil or criminal lawsuit due to the instant lawsuit.

“The instant lawsuit is withdrawn in accordance with the written agreement (No. 3). However, it is difficult to view that the written agreement is related to the execution of the instant lawsuit by the Seoul Central District Court 2015TTTT 20820, and it is difficult to view that it is related to the instant lawsuit. Thus, the Defendant’s argument is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30 million and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

(b) defenses;

유사 판례

-청주지방법원 2018.05.25 2017나16182

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.10.12 2016가합104833

-대구지방법원 2017.05.18 2016가단124044

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.08.25 2016가합368

-대구지방법원 2017.07.12 2016나11880