(영문) 인천지방법원 2018.01.23 2017가합55915

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) 인천지방법원 2018.01.23 2017가합55915

대여금

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 170,766,967 and KRW 40,00,00 among them, from January 1, 2013, and the remainder 130,766.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Defendants are married couple, and the Plaintiff is the husband of Defendant C, the father of Defendant C.

B. On December 29, 2009, the Defendants drafted a loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with respect to KRW 80,000,000 (hereinafter “the loan No. 1 of this case”) to the Plaintiff as follows.

The loan certificate 80,000,000 won is borrowed from the plaintiff and the repayment shall be made until December 31, 2012, and no civil or criminal objection shall be raised when the above agreement is made.

C. On March 6, 2007, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 130,766,967 (hereinafter “instant loans”) to Defendant B.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff leased KRW 80,000,00 to the Defendants as of December 31, 2012. As such, the Defendants are obliged to pay KRW 40,00,000 to the Plaintiff and delay damages therefrom, and the Plaintiff lent KRW 130,76,967 to the Defendant B on March 6, 2007. As such, Defendant B is obliged to pay the amount of KRW 130,76,967 and delay damages therefrom.

B. The defendants' assertion 1) The loan certificate of this case is written as the plaintiff even though the creditor of the loan No. 1 of this case was D, and the loan No. 1 of this case was not paid on the date of preparation of the loan certificate of this case, but on the date of preparation of the loan certificate of this case, it is different from the fact. The loan certificate of this case was written by force.

B) The loan No. 1 of this case is the amount invested by D in the Defendants. C) The loan No. 1 of this case is a commercial claim leased by the Plaintiff for the Defendant’s restaurant business. Since the Plaintiff filed the lawsuit of this case five years after the lapse of the five years from December 29, 2009, which was prepared the loan certificate, the extinctive prescription of the loan No. 1 of this case was completed. D repaid all the loan No. 1 of this case on behalf of the Defendants.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.01.30 2013가단27629

-의정부지방법원 2016.01.13 2014가합10264

-인천지방법원 2017.10.31 2017나55285

-서울동부지방법원 2019.01.11 2017가단120036

-서울북부지방법원 2019.10.17 2019나32321