(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.01.13 2014나102 | 리걸엔진

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) 전주지방법원 2015.01.13 2014나102

대여금

Text

1. All appeals by the Defendants are dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendants.

The purport of the claim and appeal is the purport of the appeal.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is a person who has run a video tape lending business, and the defendants are married couple.

B. On August 29, 2004, the Defendants prepared and delivered each of the following descriptions to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “instant notes”).

I swear that each of them shall pay 60,000,000 won as 1,00,000 won as of the end of each month.

It will be deposited at the end of each month into AC passbook from October 29, 2004 to 500,000 each month.

On August 29, 2004, the fact that there is no dispute over C [based ground for recognition], entry of evidence No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the plaintiff 60 million won and damages for delay as stipulated in the letter of claim in this case.

B. The Defendants asserted that the amount of KRW 60 million as stated in the instant written statement was an important part of the legal act, and the Defendants asserted that the amount constitutes an important part of the legal act, and thus the said amount was revoked on the ground of mistake.

The evidence No. 1 is insufficient to acknowledge that the Defendants caused a mistake as to the amount stated in the note of this case only with the statement No. 1, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Rather, in light of the purport of Gap evidence No. 2 and the whole argument, it is reasonable to view that the defendant Eul borrowed money equivalent to KRW 60 million from the plaintiff, and that the defendants prepared and delivered the letter of this case in relation to the above borrowed money, including KRW 2.2 million on Apr. 17, 2002, KRW 5 million on Jan. 17, 2003, KRW 2.2 million on Jan. 23, 2003, KRW 3 million on May 27, 2003, and KRW 5 million on May 7, 2003.

Therefore, the above assertion by the defendants is rejected.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2020.07.08 2019나323454

-서울고등법원 2019.11.08 2019나2006421

-수원지방법원 2015.12.18 2015나17873

-부산고등법원 2018.02.07 2017나54961

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.09.21 2016나423