(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.11.26 2014나43455

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) 수원지방법원 2015.11.26 2014나43455

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

The first instance court.

Reasons

1. The following facts are acknowledged according to the descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 to 3, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 3.

On June 15, 2007, KRW 300,000,000 on April 24, 2007, KRW 11,000 on May 11, 2007, KRW 300,000,000 on June 15, 2007, KRW 5 million on July 4, 2007; KRW 6.8 million on July 28, 200, KRW 18,000 on July 1, 2007; KRW 7.4 million on July 28, 2007; KRW 8,000,000 on August 14, 2008; KRW 8.5 million on August 24, 2007; KRW 8.5 million on August 24, 2007; and KRW 1 million on September 14, 2005.

A. Money transactions through an account between the Plaintiff and the Defendant are as listed below:

B. On September 15, 2007, the Defendant borrowed KRW 100 million to the Plaintiff, made payment by September 30, 2008, and made up a loan certificate stating that the agreement shall be 2% per month (hereinafter “instant loan certificate”).

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion is the cause of the instant claim. On September 14, 2007, the Plaintiff sought payment of the principal and interest on the following grounds: (a) the Plaintiff set the interest rate of KRW 100 million to the Defendant on the 2% of the due date and September 30, 2008; and (b) the Plaintiff received the instant loan certificate as a disposition document on the following day.

(A) The Plaintiff asserted as above at the time of the application for the payment order of this case, and the loan certificate of this case changed its assertion that it was drafted in the course of entering into a novation agreement with the purport that the loan amounting to KRW 94.8 million, which was remitted prior to September 14, 2007, would be KRW 100 million. The Plaintiff changed its assertion again in the first instance trial, which was ruled against the Plaintiff on the ground that the renewal contract is not recognized in the first instance trial, again, at the first instance trial of the person who was ruled against the Plaintiff. In this regard, the Defendant asserts that the loan principal

B. The facts acknowledged earlier are examined.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2014.10.29 2014가단28455

-의정부지방법원 2014.01.07 2010고단376

-대구지방법원경주지원 2014.04.25 2013가단1061

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.14 2013가합35066

-대전지방법원 2019.02.20 2018가합1616