logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2014.12.31 2013가합3952
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 655,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from June 5, 2013 to December 31, 2014 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. On May 11, 2009, 220,000,000 to May 12, 2009, or November 30, 2009 through November 5, 201, 200, 300,000 to April 50, 200,000 April 7, 201, 200 to 50,000 on January 7, 201, 200 to 650,00,000 on January 140, 20, 200, 650,000 to the Plaintiff without any dispute over each of the above loans, the Defendant is not obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 65,00,000 to 65,00,000,000 to 65,000,000,000 from May 15, 2009 to 315,206.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The Defendant asserts that the defense of invalidity due to a false representation of the truth or a false conspiracy between the Defendant and C is invalid because the Plaintiff merely received a formal loan and a promissory note from the Defendant as a security for the refund of the deposit for lease while operating the respective massage offices located in C and D under the name of the Defendant. As such, each of the above monetary loan agreements is a false indication, where the Plaintiff knew, or could have known, that the Plaintiff was not the Defendant’s truth, or as it constitutes a false representation of agreement

The evidence Nos. 2, 10, 13, and Nos. 4-1, 2, and 3-3, and some testimony of E by the witness, which correspond to the fact that the Plaintiff operated each of the above massage operations in the name of the Defendant, are difficult to believe with hot, and the remaining evidence submitted by the Defendant alone is insufficient to recognize this.

Rather, the following circumstances, which are acknowledged as comprehensively considering the purport of the entire pleadings in the written evidence Nos. 30 and 33, that is, the Defendant paid a certain monthly amount to the Plaintiff regardless of the performance of the operation of the relevant place of massage practice, and was not paid by the Plaintiff, and the Defendant concluded a lease contract on the building of the place of massage practice in its name, and from the other persons.

arrow