logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2014.01.14 2013가단47280
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 90,800,000 and the amount of KRW 50,000 among them, which shall be paid in full from June 25, 2013.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 12, 2008, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend money from the Defendant on August 12, 2008, the Plaintiff: (a) completed the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage for the shares of Gyeonggi-gun D forest owned by the Defendant’s wife C with the maximum debt amount of KRW 60 million; (b) on August 13, 2008, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to the Defendant as interest rate of KRW 80,000 per month (1.6% per month); (c) on June 2008, the Plaintiff demanded the Defendant to pay the interest amount of KRW 52,500,000,000 from the above loan amount of KRW 50 million,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000 won for eight months, deducted the remainder of KRW 475,5097.

B. On September 20, 2008, the Defendant remitted 800,000 won interest on the said loan to the Plaintiff’s above account.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, witness F, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loans of KRW 50 million and interest and delay damages after October 13, 2008.

Although the defendant asserts that the above loan was not borrowed by the defendant but borrowed by the defendant's wife C, the debtor of the establishment registration of the above loan, which was made as security, is not the defendant, is not the defendant.

In light of the above facts and evidence, it is difficult to recognize the above assertion solely on the ground that the Plaintiff did not receive the loan certificate from the Defendant at the time of the above lending. Rather, according to the above facts and evidence, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50 million upon the Defendant’s request during the transaction of goods with the Defendant at the time of the above lending, and it appears that the Plaintiff merely received the Defendant’s right to collateral security as to the above forest shares owned by the Defendant wife C and did not have any aspect to C, and the Defendant directly remitted interest on the above loan on September 2008 as requested by the Plaintiff at the time of the lending

arrow