(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.15 2014나60261

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.07.15 2014나60261

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of a judgment of the first instance;

2. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

3. All costs of the lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff asserted that on June 15, 2004, the plaintiff extended KRW 6 million to the defendant and received a promissory note, power of attorney, and a real estate lease agreement with the defendant as the lessee. However, the defendant paid only a part of it and did not pay the remainder of KRW 5.94 million, which led to the claim of this case in order to be paid.

In this regard, the defendant borrowed money from the plaintiff to raise the security deposit while renting studio around January 2003. However, the defendant did not borrow money on June 15, 2004 like the plaintiff's assertion.

In addition, the defendant paid the above borrowed money by the number of days, and moved to another place on June 2003, and received the deposit and repaid all.

Furthermore, the defendant asserts that since the defendant borrowed the above money from the plaintiff, a credit service provider, through the words "mast", while engaging in entertainment business as the age of 23 years old at the time, the above loan claim of the plaintiff, a commercial bond, has expired five years prior to the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

2. As seen earlier, it is recognized that the Defendant borrowed money from the Plaintiff. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is first determined on the premise of the existence of the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendant.

The plaintiff lent a certain amount of 6 million won to the defendant without any particular interest rate between the defendant and the defendant who lent money to the defendant, and the plaintiff is also a person who has affixed a letter of confirmation to the head of the Tong when he received KRW 60,000 won from the defendant for about a day.

In addition, the Plaintiff also received promissory notes, proxy, and real estate lease agreement in the name of the Defendant as collateral for the loan.

At this time, the defendant was relatively 23 years old, and added the circumstances in which the plaintiff borrowed money from the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 2017.10.27 2016고단6268

-서울북부지방법원 2016.11.23 2016고단3743

-전주지방법원 2018.10.31 2017가단29622

-울산지방법원 2017.10.19 2017고단2654

-제주지방법원 2017.03.27 2016가단11775