logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.06.16 2016가단23239
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 133,00,000 as well as 5% per annum from April 15, 2015 to September 26, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The fact-finding B, C, D, etc. conspired with the Plaintiff’s employees E and F to obtain a loan from the Plaintiff by using a false lease contract with the Plaintiff’s employees E and F.

(2) The Defendant submitted to the Plaintiff a lease contract on April 10, 2015 regarding “Seoul Gagra No. 302 on the third floor (Seoul Gagra No. 302)” as the lessee and documents necessary for the loan, such as the lease contract (H: deposit: 190 million won) and the loan contract and the loan transaction agreement, which are written by the Defendant as the lessee.

However, the defendant did not have entered into a lease contract with H on the housing above.

E and F have prepared internal documents as if the above loan application was made normally and approved by the plaintiff president who is not aware of the circumstances.

Accordingly, on April 15, 2015, the Plaintiff misleads the Defendant as the genuine lessee, and remitted KRW 130 million to the Defendant’s account.

The contestants of this case were convicted of the criminal facts by deceiving the plaintiff and deceiving the loan by using a false lease contract submitted by the defendant, etc. as above.

(Seoul Western District Court 2016Gohap132, etc.). [Grounds for recognition: the fact that there is no dispute, each entry in Gap evidence 1 through 10 (including paper numbers), the purport of the whole pleadings]

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. In the case of a joint tort under Article 760 of the Civil Act which causes damage to another person jointly, the joint tort does not require not only a conspiracy among actors, but also a common perception: Provided, That if the joint tort is objectively related to the joint act, the joint tort is established which is sufficiently sufficient and is liable to compensate for the damage caused by the pertinent joint act;

(see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2001Da2181, May 8, 2001). The above facts of recognition are acknowledged.

arrow