logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.09.16 2019나55637
약정금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff's assertion is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 29,158,520 won with 15% interest per annum from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case to the day of complete payment, with the exception of 29,541,480 won, excluding the loan 118,700,000 won to the plaintiff.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In full view of the following circumstances acknowledged by Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, Gap evidence Nos. 3-2, 3-3, and 4 (including provisional numbers) and the purport of the whole pleadings, the evidence submitted by the plaintiff alone is insufficient to acknowledge the plaintiff's assertion that the plaintiff lent KRW 118,70,00 (the total amount of principal borrowed as stated in Gap evidence No. 3-1, 2, 3, and 3) to the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it otherwise.

However, it is recognized that the plaintiff has lent the money actually paid to the defendant through the account.

(1) In principle, a document may be submitted in lieu of the original, original, or certified certified copy pursuant to Article 326(1) of the Civil Procedure Act, or a copy may be submitted in lieu of the original as an original. If the other party acknowledges the existence or establishment of the original and objects thereto, a copy may be submitted in lieu of the original. In such a case, the document shall have the same effect as the original is submitted, and if not, there shall be no formal evidence.

(See Supreme Court Decision 91Da45608 delivered on April 28, 1992). No. 3-1 is merely a copy of a document of borrowing money, which is marked as a photograph, and the defendant denies the existence of the original and raises an objection in lieu of the original (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da45608 delivered on April 28, 1992), and evidence No. 3-1 cannot be used as evidence.

② The Plaintiff’s total sum of the money deposited to the Defendant from February 27, 2015 to November 25, 2015 is KRW 84,250,00, but KRW 3,00.

arrow