(영문) 대전지방법원 2018.01.31 2016나112455

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) 대전지방법원 2018.01.31 2016나112455

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On August 26, 2013, a loan agreement was made between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with the following content (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”), and the loan was paid under the instant loan agreement.

A debtor and a surety: The date of commencement of loan of KRW 98,00,000: August 29, 2013: The expiration of the loan period: The interest rate on August 29, 2016: the fluctuation rate (6.37%) (6.37%).

B. The Defendant did not pay interest, etc. under the loan agreement of this case, and the Plaintiff applied for a compulsory auction for real estate owned by the obligor to Youngju District Court Dong-dong Branch C, but did not receive the principal and interest of the loan under the loan agreement of this case.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. The key issue of this case, derived from the plaintiff's assertion of the original defendant, the plaintiff sought payment of the principal and interest of loan to the defendant pursuant to the loan agreement of this case. 2) The defendant only signed and sealed the loan document upon the request of D who worked as the president of the plaintiff. Since the loan under the loan agreement of this case is used D, the loan agreement of this case between the plaintiff and the defendant is invalid as a false declaration of agreement.

3) In light of the foregoing, the issue of this case is whether the instant loan agreement was concluded by a declaration of intention based on false representation in collusion. (B) D, from February 4, 2004 to May 2014, was in office as the president of the Plaintiff, and supervised the Plaintiff’s overall affairs. Since November 1, 2096, E, who entered the Plaintiff and worked as managing director from November 1, 201 to May 201, took overall charge of the Plaintiff’s credit business, etc.

2 D around 2006 invested in G business in Daejeon-gu F as a loan received from the Plaintiff, but failed, and the principal and interest of the loan began to be increased.

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.05.11 2016가단15317

-부산지방법원 2018.06.14 2016가단51893

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2020.10.15 2018가합7135

-서울행정법원 2015.12.10 2015구합54841

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.03.16 2015나23986