(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.06 2015가단51389

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.10.06 2015가단51389

양수금

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 38,500,000 and the interest rate thereon from December 31, 2005 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 22, 2004, the Defendants prepared a notarial deed of monetary loan agreement No. 889 of 2004 (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed of this case”) with the content that “the Defendant borrowed 38.5 million won from D on April 22, 2004 as interest without interest (hereinafter referred to as “the money of this case”), and the due date shall be determined as of December 30, 2005, and if the obligation is not performed, 20% of the delay damages shall be paid and compulsory execution shall be accepted” (hereinafter referred to as “notarial deed of this case”).

B. The Defendants did not borrow the instant notarial deed from the business relationship and did not repay the borrowed money to D due to the business division.

C. On September 3, 2014, D transferred the principal and interest of the loan granted to the Defendants on the instant notarial deed to the Plaintiff that he/she bears the obligation to pay goods, and on November 4, 2014, notified the Defendants of the assignment of the said claim by mail.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1-5 evidence (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. The instant notarial deed is indicated only as “debtor A, B, and C” and it is not clear whether the Defendants’ obligation for the borrowed money is a divided debt or an overlapping debt. However, according to the written reply submitted by Defendant C and D, D delegated the Defendants’ business to Defendant A in the course of running a business together with the Defendant, and the instant notarial deed was prepared in the course of purchasing additional tax data. In light of the evidence revealed earlier, it is reasonable to view that the instant notarial deed was prepared with the Defendants’ business relationship with D, the process of preparing the instant notarial deed, and the preparation of the notarial deed, by its nature, with the intent to jointly and severally repay the instant money to D, who is the lender of the money.

Therefore, the defendants are different.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.14 2017나57525

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.09.10 2014가단31886

-대전지방법원서산지원 2014.10.23 2014가합849

-서울남부지방법원 2017.09.22 2016가단215350

-부산지방법원 2020.12.10 2020나44305