(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.27 2015가단26231

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) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.04.27 2015가단26231

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 163,890,411 as well as KRW 100,000 among them, from August 22, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. On August 8, 2007, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate with the Defendant stating that “10 million won shall be lent, and the principal and interest (8%) shall be paid by February 11, 2009,” and lent on August 9, 2007 to the Defendant on August 10, 2007.

(Entry in Evidence No. 3 and the purport of the entire pleadings). According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 163,890,411 won (principal KRW 100 million and interest KRW 63,890,411) from August 10, 2007 to August 4, 2015, the amount of KRW 100,000,000 from August 22, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. On December 6, 2011, C, the representative director of the Plaintiff Company, who is the Defendant’s assertion, borrowed 100 million won from the Defendant’s friendship D and prepared a cash custody certificate. On January 2015, C agreed with the Defendant and C, “The amount borrowed by the Plaintiff Company to the Defendant shall be offset by D,” and D agreed.

B. The testimony of D alone is insufficient to recognize whether the Defendant borrowed the cash custody certificate (No. 1) submitted by C from D.

In addition, even if C borrowed KRW 100 million from D, such as the above cash custody certificate, the loan certificate submitted by the Plaintiff is the amount that the Plaintiff Company lent to the Defendant, and the cash custody certificate submitted by the Defendant is written as borrowing from CD, and thus, the bond and the subject of the obligation are different.

Therefore, even if C had agreed to offset the above amount as claimed by the Defendant, it cannot be set off arbitrarily against the Plaintiff Company’s claims, and there is no evidence to deem otherwise that the Plaintiff Company consented to such set-off.

Ultimately, the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. According to the conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2020.02.19 2019나59362

-서울남부지방법원 2019.12.12 2019나222

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2019.02.21 2018가단3468

-서울남부지방법원 2020.11.10 2020가단14684