logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.01 2018가단201817
약정금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The plaintiff is between the husband of the defendant B and the wife, and the defendant C is the wife of the defendant B.

B. The Defendants are operating a child-care center under the name of “E child-care center” in Namyang-si, Namyang-si, and the Plaintiff also lent the Defendants a gold of KRW 30 million around May 30, 1994, thereby running the child-care center.

C. From April 3, 2011 to August 7, 2015, the Defendants remitted KRW 75 million to the Plaintiff in the name of E Child Care Center, Defendant B, etc., in total, every fifty times a month, respectively.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 2, 3, Gap evidence 4-1 to 7, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination:

A. The gist of the parties’ assertion appears to be that the Defendants offered loans and other assistance on January 3, 201, and agreed to pay the amount of KRW 150 million up to January 31, 201, and to pay interest equivalent to 1% per month thereafter. Since the Defendants are merely paying interest equivalent to 1% per month from April 3, 201 to August 7, 2015, the Defendants jointly and severally seek payment of the said agreed amount of KRW 150 million and damages for delay.

As to this, Defendant B made an oral agreement to pay KRW 150 million to the Plaintiff. However, Defendant B asserted that the contract of gift between Defendant B and the Plaintiff was rescinded, since there was no fact that the intent of gift was expressed in writing.

Defendant C asserts that this case occurred between the Plaintiff and the Defendant B, and that he did not have promised to pay the above amount jointly with the Defendant B.

B. We examine the determination as to the claim against Defendant B, and the purport of legislation that limits the donor’s right to rescission only with respect to the written donation pursuant to Article 555 of the Civil Act is to prevent the donor from doing so and at the same time, the donor’s intention is to be the donor.

arrow