logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2021.01.13 2020가단107199
대여금
Text

The defendant's KRW 100,000,000 for the plaintiff and 5% per annum from May 19, 2020 to January 13, 2021.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserted by the parties, on November 28, 2019, set the interest rate of KRW 100,000,000 to the Defendant at 24% per annum, and thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the above loan to the Plaintiff.

Then, the plaintiff and the defendant are merely receiving KRW 100,000,000 from the plaintiff in the course of jointly investing KRW 200,000 in the non-party Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "non-party Co., Ltd."), and they do not have any fact of borrowing. Thus, they do not have the obligation to pay the borrowed amount.

2. Facts of recognition;

A. On November 28, 2019, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000 to the Defendant.

B. The Defendant paid 100,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s KRW 100,000,000 to the Nonparty Company. On November 28, 2019, the Defendant drafted a standard contract for loan transaction with the Nonparty Company for loans amounting to 200,000,000 won, interest rate of KRW 200,000,000,000, and the due date of payment as of February 2, 2020.

(c)

On November 28, 2019, the non-party company completed the registration of the establishment of the right to collateral security with the maximum amount of the claims amounting to 260,000,000 won for the real estate owned by the non-party company in order to secure the defendant's obligation to borrow loans.

[Grounds for Recognition: Evidence No. 1, Evidence No. 2 and No. 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings]

3. The Plaintiff lent KRW 100,000 to the Defendant in light of the following circumstances acknowledged based on the above facts: (a) the Plaintiff was not the Plaintiff; (b) the Defendant paid KRW 200,00,000 to the Nonparty Company; and (c) there is no evidence to prove that only the Defendant completed the registration of establishment of the right to collateral security; and (d) the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the allocation of investment profits, etc., regarding the real estate owned by the Nonparty Company.

It is reasonable to see that the above lending is insufficient only with the descriptions of the evidence of subparagraphs 1 through 9.

Therefore, the defendant shall be the plaintiff.

arrow