logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2017.10.18 2017가단1270
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 28, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2012, the Defendant’s husband C established D (hereinafter “instant corporation”) a corporation, the purpose of which is aviation business in Malaysia (hereinafter “instant corporation”).

B. On July 30, 2012, the Plaintiff received a loan certificate from the Defendant stating that “The Defendant shall have promised to pay KRW 100 million borrowed from the Plaintiff by her husband C on behalf of the Plaintiff when her husband C is unable to pay the subsequent loan (hereinafter “the instant loan certificate”), and invested in the instant corporation established by C with a loan of KRW 100 million.

C. On August 31, 2012, the Plaintiff received a written investment confirmation from C, stating that “I will confirm the amount invested by the Plaintiff in the instant corporation and pay the said amount by March 2013.”

The instant corporation was bankrupt, and C was declared bankrupt by filing a petition for bankruptcy.

After all, C was decided to grant the exemption of bankruptcy claims, including the Plaintiff’s above investment deposit claims, by the Chuncheon District Court 2016, November 9, 2016.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 1 to 3, Eul evidence 4-1 to 12, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff did not prepare the instant loan certificate, thereby guaranteeing KRW 100 million of the Plaintiff’s obligation to return the investment amount to the husband C.

However, as C goes bankrupt, the defendant is obligated to pay KRW 100 million to the plaintiff on behalf of C.

B. The Defendant’s assertion that the loan certificate of this case guarantees C’s obligation to the Plaintiff, and C merely received an investment amounting to KRW 100 million from the Plaintiff, and did not borrow.

The loan certificate of this case is the father's 100 million won invested in C, and if the father talks that it is not a loan but a loan, he requested the father to write off a formal loan certificate in order to show the father's Malaysia.

arrow