logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.05.04 2017가합73917
대여금반환
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 300,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from April 8, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 through 4 of the judgment as to the cause for the claim, the Plaintiff delivered KRW 300 million to the Defendant on April 9, 2017, and the Defendant, on June 4, 2017, issued to the Plaintiff a cash custody certificate prepared as of April 7, 2017 (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) stating that “the Defendant received KRW 300 million from the Plaintiff and returned it within 30 million upon the Plaintiff’s request for return. The cash custody shall proceed free of interest, but interest shall be calculated as of April 7, 2017 as of the starting date of the cash custody, and if the obligation is not performed, the interest shall be calculated as of April 7, 2017.” (hereinafter “the cash custody certificate of this case”) to the Plaintiff on April 13, 2017, who sent the above cash custody certificate of KRW 300 million to the Defendant on April 10, 2017.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from April 8, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the cash custody certificate of this case, to the Plaintiff, as the Defendant was requested by the Plaintiff to pay KRW 300 million to the Plaintiff from May 2017 to 30 days, barring special circumstances.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant received KRW 300 million from the plaintiff was paid as the investment money for the business of the U.S. hambber brand name that the plaintiff would promote together, and as the defendant prepared and delivered the cash custody certificate of this case instead of the receipt for the payment of the above investment money at the plaintiff's request, it cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the defendant's above assertion, and even if it was paid as the investment money,

2.

arrow