(영문) 수원지방법원 2019.10.23 2018나9798 | 리걸엔진

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) 수원지방법원 2019.10.23 2018나9798

배당이의

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

purport.

Reasons

1. The reasons why the court of this case cited in the judgment of the court of first instance are as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance, except where the defendant added the following "2. Additional determination" as to the assertion added by the court of first instance. As such, it is cited in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the

2. Additional determination

A. The defendant's argument only concluded a transfer contract with the plaintiff on the loan claim of KRW 60 million, which the defendant had under a monetary loan contract between the plaintiff and the plaintiff, and did not accept the contractual status of L.

Therefore, the Defendant’s payment of KRW 60 million to L, thereby acquiring a loan claim of KRW 60 million against the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the Defendant a loan principal of KRW 60 million and interest and interest interest thereon, and the instant dividend table premised thereon is justifiable.

B. Acceptance of a contract for the purpose of succession to the status as a party to the contract can be made by means of two parties to the contract or two parties to the contract and their consent or consent (see Supreme Court Decision 2009Da4521, 45238, Oct. 29, 2009), Gap's evidence 1 through 3, Eul's evidence 1 through 6, witness's witness's witness's testimony and arguments, and the following circumstances are acknowledged: ① the plaintiff agreed to borrow 60 million won from L on Jan. 26, 2016 to request the defendant to provide funds; ②O explained to the plaintiff and the defendant that there was a transaction relationship between the plaintiff and the defendant on the same day; ③ the defendant becomes the defendant who actually lent money to the transferor, not the transferor; ③ The defendant, not the transferor, on the ground of the transfer of the right to collateral security (the maximum debt amount).

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

참조판례

-대법원 2009. 10. 29. 선고 2009다45221,45238 판결

유사 판례

-부산고등법원 2015.10.14 2015나51395

-대구지방법원 2021.02.18 2020나313132

-대법원 2015.4.9.선고 2012다101008 판결

-수원지방법원 2019.05.14 2018나13940

-대법원 2023. 3. 30. 선고 2022다296165 판결