logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원 2019.11.29 2019나51911
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) regarding the principal lawsuit is revoked, and that part constitutes the revoked part.

Reasons

A principal lawsuit and a counterclaim shall be deemed simultaneously.

1. Facts without dispute;

A. On February 5, 2013, the Plaintiff lent to the Defendant a total of KRW 10 million on April 1, 2013, and KRW 10 million on April 1, 2013 without due date.

(hereinafter “Plaintiff’s loan”). (b)

Meanwhile, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff’s account KRW 1.21 million on June 11, 2009, ② KRW 1.5 million on April 5, 2010, ③ KRW 500,000 on September 30, 201, ④ KRW 6 million on June 25, 2012, ⑤ KRW 1 million on October 31, 2012, ⑤ KRW 600,000 on September 15, 2013, ② KRW 32.3 million on September 4, 2014.

2. The parties' assertion

A. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to pay the loan 10 million won and delay damages to the plaintiff.

(Request for Main Office)

B. The Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 10 million was terminated by the settlement agreement or the Defendant’s declaration of set-off as follows. Rather, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant the loan amounting to KRW 22.3 million (=the Defendant’s loan claim amounting to KRW 32.3 million - the Plaintiff’s loan claim amounting to KRW 10 million) and delay damages.

(Counterclaim Claim) (1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed to set off and liquidate all the claims and obligations between the parties on July 24, 2017, thereby extinguishing the Plaintiff’s loan claims. 2) 1st preliminary, the Plaintiff’s loan claims did not extinguish by the said agreement.

Even if the defendant extended a total of KRW 32,300,00 to the plaintiff as stated in the above Paragraph 1-B, the defendant shall set off the above loan claim against the plaintiff's loan claim as the automatic bond.

3. Preliminary 2, from October 7, 2016, the Plaintiff constantly threatened the Defendant to prosecute him as embezzlement or fraud of company funds, etc., and accordingly received a summary order as a crime of intimidation. Accordingly, the Defendant’s claim for consolation money due to tort against the Plaintiff is offset against the Plaintiff’s loan claim based on its automatic claim.

3. Judgment on the main claim

(a)the cause of the action;

arrow