(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.06.24 2019나7218 | 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 2020.06.24 2019나7218

손해배상

Text

Of the judgment of the first instance, the part against Defendant C is revoked, and the Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C is dismissed.

Defendant.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the claim against Defendant B and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff agreed to lend KRW 50 million to Defendant B on November 28, 2016 by setting the interest rate of KRW 30 million until the due date and the due date until December 31, 2016. The Plaintiff transferred KRW 50 million to Defendant C’s account designated by Defendant B on November 29, 2016 (hereinafter “instant loan”).

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from November 29, 2016 to March 13, 2019, the delivery date of the complaint of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks, within the scope of the interest agreed upon.

Defendant B lent KRW 20 million among the instant loans to D, and the Plaintiff was directly paid KRW 20 million with D. As such, Defendant B asserts that, among the instant loans, KRW 20 million has already been settled and has no obligation to pay to the Plaintiff.

According to the purport of Gap evidence No. 3 and the entire pleadings, it is acknowledged that Eul agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 20 million out of the instant loan jointly with Defendant B, on January 5, 2017, by February 10, 2017, but it is insufficient to recognize that the above fact of recognition alone exempted Defendant B from the obligation to pay the instant loan, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

Therefore, Defendant B’s above assertion is without merit.

2. The Plaintiff, along with Defendant C, lent the instant loan to Defendant C.

or Defendant C, in collusion with Defendant B, asserts that he obtained the instant loan from the Plaintiff.

Defendant B received the instant loan from the Plaintiff to the account in the name of Defendant C.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.04 2015가합505521

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.05.24 2017가단116485

-서울서부지방법원 2017.02.09 2016가합1670

-제주지방법원 2018.11.01 2018가합10094

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2017.02.08 2016가합70133