logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.16 2017가단5230133
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff’s deposit account was transferred in KRW 5 million on November 6, 2007 and KRW 15 million on November 26, 2007 to the Defendant’s deposit account. On December 7, 2007, the Defendant’s deposit account was transferred in KRW 20 million from the Defendant’s deposit account to D (hereinafter “D”) and KRW 10 million from December 11, 2007 to D’s deposit account (hereinafter “the instant account transfer”).

B. D was registered for incorporation on November 27, 2007, and the Defendant was registered as D’s auditor on the corporate register and resigned on February 19, 2008.

C.D discontinued its business around January 2008 due to business deterioration. D.

The plaintiff and the defendant, around January 2008, entrusted C with the preparation of promissory notes with a face value of KRW 50,000,000 in face value, but did not reach the preparation of promissory notes and notarial deeds.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion;

A. The Plaintiff primaryly lent the instant account transfer to the Defendant, and even if the instant account transfer was not a loan, as alleged by the Defendant, as otherwise alleged by the Defendant, the Defendant entered into a refund guarantee agreement on the principal and interest at the time of the transfer of the instant account transfer (hereinafter “return guarantee agreement”). As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of the loan or the refund guarantee agreement and the damages for delay.

B. The Defendant did not borrow the account transfer of this case from the Plaintiff, but merely received investment funds from D, and did not agree to refund and guarantee the principal and interest of the investment funds.

Even when it is assumed that the account transfer of this case constitutes a loan or that there was an agreement to guarantee the repayment of the principal and interest of the investment amount, the Defendant borrowed or received an investment from D’s business funds.

arrow