(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가단32699

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) 서울동부지방법원 2017.11.15 2016가단32699

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 147,677,41 and KRW 145,282,370 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 145,282,370 from April 10, 2015 to November 15, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 18, 201, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Defendant running C (State) as follows (hereinafter “instant agreement”), and paid KRW 190,000,000 to the Defendant.

The Plaintiff shall invest KRW 190,00,000 in a newly built multi-household house in the D-based multi-household operated by the Defendant.

The defendant shall return 230,000,000 won to the plaintiff simultaneously with the completion of multi-household housing, which is the sum of 3% per month with interest rate on the above investment.

B. Regarding interest rate of KRW 40,000,000, the Plaintiff received KRW 20,000 from the Defendant until May 24, 2012, and the remainder KRW 20,000,000 succeeded to Nonparty E’s purchase price of KRW 20,000 and was paid.

The Plaintiff received respectively KRW 10,00,000,000 on June 14, 2012 as the purchase price, and KRW 10,000,00 on April 18, 2013.

C. On May 24, 2012, the Plaintiff agreed with the Defendant to pay the principal of KRW 190,000,000 as of December 2012, and the interest up to the date of repayment was 1% per month (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

The payment of the money that the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff is written in the following table.

Serial 10-6,00,00 interest rate of April 9, 2012 6,00,000 on May 2, 2012; 3, 10,000 interest rate of 4,00,000 on May 2, 2012; 10,00,00 on June 14, 2012; 10,00,00 on July 25, 200, 30,000 on June 30, 205, 10-6,000 on June 30, 205, 200: 10-5,00 on May 30, 201, 200-6: 10-5,000 on December 7, 2012; 10-7,000,000 on May 18, 2013;

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Although the defendant of the agreement asserts that the party to the agreement of this case is C (State), in light of the fact that the agreement of this case and the agreement are written in the name of the defendant in the name of the defendant, it is reasonable to deem that the party to the agreement is the

B. The Plaintiff is the Plaintiff at the agreed interest rate of 1.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2018.05.15 2017가단56930

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.14 2017가합570109

-서울동부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가합102069

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2017.02.03 2016가단2053

-서울동부지방법원 2017.06.21 2016가합105068