(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단2559

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) 수원지방법원 2015.09.11 2015가단2559

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. C Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Co., Ltd.”) is “the amount borrowed in this case” in December 1, 2004, with respect to D Co., Ltd. on December 1, 2004

at the same time, in connection with the E-Japan multi-family housing project, it shall be borrowed as business funds and shall be paid by applying the interest rate of two copies per month.

“The” has drawn up and issued a loan certificate stating its contents.

B. On September 23, 2013, D Co., Ltd. transferred the instant loan claim to the Plaintiff, the representative director, and notified the transfer of the claim to B around May 20, 2015.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Gap evidence 5-1, 2, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that, although the loan certificate of this case includes the non-party company as the borrower, the non-party company is merely the defendant's nominal company and is actually the defendant, or the defendant is jointly and severally liable to pay the loan of this case.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts that the non-party company borrowed the loan for the purpose of investment, and that the non-party company was normally operated at the time, so the representative director does not bear the responsibility of personal repayment.

3. It is not sufficient to find that the defendant actually borrowed the loan of this case or jointly and severally guaranteed the debt of this case against the plaintiff merely with the statement of Gap evidence No. 6, and testimony of witness F, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

Rather, according to the respective statements of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, Eul evidence Nos. 1, 2, and Eul evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and witness F's testimony, the non-party company at the time of the loan in this case was actually operating as a business operator, such as promoting a collective housing business, and the borrower who borrowed the above KRW 50 million is the non-party company with the representative director, not the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.01.24 2017가단3084

-창원지방법원통영지원 2015.02.17 2014가단1491

-춘천지방법원 2018.10.17 2017나1985

-수원지방법원성남지원 2014.04.30 2013가단24459

-서울서부지방법원 2017.05.23 2016가단27767