logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.07 2019가단5117340
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall correspond to the amount of each of the principal column in the attached sheet to the plaintiff and each of them in the attached sheet.

Reasons

1. The judgment C on the cause of the claim deposited KRW 14,00,000 with the Plaintiff’s account on June 30, 2014, and the Plaintiff deposited KRW 30,000,000 in total to the Defendant’s account; the Plaintiff wired KRW 4,99,500 on July 29, 2014 to the Defendant’s account; the Plaintiff wired KRW 45,002,00 on July 31, 2017; the Defendant deposited KRW 66,00,000 in the Plaintiff’s name on March 23, 2016; the Plaintiff deposited KRW 14,00,000 in the Defendant’s account; the Defendant did not have any dispute over the repayment of KRW 30,00,00 from January 1, 2017 to KRW 300,000,00 in each of the instant agreements; or the Defendant prepared and delivered a written agreement between the parties (hereinafter “A”).

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant promised to pay KRW 66,00,000 to the Plaintiff for KRW 3,000,000 each month from January 2017, and the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 3,000,000 each month from January 2017 to 66,00,000 in accordance with the agreement of this case.

2. The Defendant’s assertion is acknowledged that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 5,00,000 from the Plaintiff on July 29, 2014, and KRW 45,000,000 on July 31, 2014. However, the Defendant asserted that: (a) 16,000,000 out of KRW 30,000 deposited on June 30, 2014 was paid to the Plaintiff by the Defendant for the transfer of KRW 3732 shares D; (b) the Defendant prepared the instant agreement and made it an error in the important part at the time of the legal act; and (c) the Defendant revoked part of the agreement under the instant agreement on the grounds of mistake through the preparatory brief dated 18, 2019; and (d) there is no amount equivalent to the above KRW 16,00,000 and delay damages for the payment thereof.

According to the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3, the defendant held office as the representative director of D, and the plaintiff was appointed as the director of D on September 5, 2014, but on March 2016.

arrow