logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.10.19 2016가단13603
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 100,000,00 and the Defendants B from June 14, 2015 to May 30, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 2015, the Plaintiff and Defendant B entered into a sales agency service contract with the Plaintiff and Defendant B on behalf of the Plaintiff and the Defendant with respect to the hotel constructed and sold by the Nonparty Company between the Plaintiff and the Nonparty Company E (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) that implements the business of building and selling a hotel on the land, including Nam-gu, Nam-gu, and the land.

On March 13, 2015, the Plaintiff paid KRW 100,000,000 to Nonparty Company and Defendant B paid KRW 130,000,00 on March 27, 2014.

B. On March 13, 2015, Defendant B: (a) prepared a loan certificate stating that “if the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 100,000,000,000 from the sales agency to the non-party company and the non-party company did not refund the deposit to the Plaintiff within three months, Defendant B shall return the deposit to the Plaintiff, including the statutory interest, from the day following the due date of payment; and (b) Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B’s duty to return the deposit to the Plaintiff.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against Nonparty Company with the Seoul Central District Court (Seoul Central District Court Decision 2015Da516815) claiming the amount of the performance bond paid to Nonparty Company as the estimated amount of damages for the cancellation of the sales agency contract. On September 18, 2015, the said court rendered a judgment that “The Nonparty Company shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount equivalent to KRW 200,000,000 and KRW 20% per annum from August 4, 2015 to the date of full payment,” and the said judgment became final and conclusive.

[Ground of recognition] The fact that there is no dispute, Gap evidence 1 (the authenticity of the whole document is presumed to have been made because the dispute over the unmanneds after the defendant's name is not in dispute), Eul evidence 2, and the purport of whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Where a third party prepares a loan certificate, check or promissory note on behalf of the debtor with respect to another person's obligation to determine the cause of the claim, and delivers it to the creditor.

arrow