(영문) 창원지방법원 2015.04.15 2014나8626 | 리걸엔진

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 2015.04.15 2014나8626

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 9, 2013, the Plaintiff transferred KRW 40,000,00 to the Agricultural Cooperative Account under the name of the Defendant.

B. On January 9, 2013, the Defendant’s husband C, on behalf of the Defendant, entered the Defendant’s name and affixed the Defendant’s seal on the loan certificate stating that “The above amount is KRW 40,00,000 ( KRW 40,000), which was drawn up by H, an employee of D Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “D”), the Plaintiff’s representative director, shall be the Defendant, and the due date shall be May 31, 2013, the interest shall be the interest-free, and the loan certificate shall be drawn up and issued” (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1-1 and 2-1, each entry, H's testimony of the party-trial witness H, part of the witness C of the court of first instance, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. 1) The plaintiff asserts that 40,000,000 won remitted to the account under the name of the defendant is a loan.

B) On May 2012, the Defendant entered into a contract with D for the construction of a bath with the construction period of six months, and entered into a contract for the construction of a bath on July 6, 2012. D was unable to complete the construction of a public bath until the completion date of the completion date of the said contract, and the Plaintiff was delayed due to the delayed completion date of the F bath Construction and did not set the rate for liquidated damages under the said contract, and did not lend the loan amount of KRW 40,00,000 for the Defendant’s living cost on account of the fact that the F bath Construction was not set at the rate for liquidated damages under the said contract. As to the loan amount certificate of this case, the Plaintiff asserted that, although the Plaintiff was an individual deposit of the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff was required to arrange the loan amount of KRW 40,00,00,000 for the company, the Plaintiff affixed a seal on the loan amount of KRW 30,00 on the completion date of the said contract.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2014.07.15 2013가단28653

-부산지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단353216

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.19 2015가단5384883

-대전지방법원천안지원 2020.08.19 2019가단9688

-부산지방법원 2018.07.04 2017나40099