(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.08.09 2017가단208

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) 울산지방법원 2017.08.09 2017가단208

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 16,00,000 and the interest rate from December 16, 2005 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff, 005Da16351, filed a payment order against the defendants to claim payment of loans with the court below 2005Da16351, and served the defendants' domicile on December 15, 2005. The defendants did not file an objection and confirmed on December 30, 2005. The contents of the claim are as follows: the defendants jointly and severally pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 16 million and the amount of money calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from the day following the delivery of the above payment order to the day of full payment.

The cause of claim: The Defendants, as married couple, seek reimbursement of damages incurred by acquiring 13 million won from the Plaintiff who consented to the proposal to operate the exchange (exchange) in the course of the operation of the adult amusement room by acquiring 13 million won against the Plaintiff. The Defendants, as married couple, seek reimbursement of 3 million won loans lent to the Defendants.

0. According to the fact that the Defendants did not pay the above amount, the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit again for the extension of the extinctive prescription period.

2. Grounds for recognition;

(a) Defendant C: Evidence No. 1 and the purport of the whole pleadings;

(b) Defendant B: Judgment by public notice (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

3. Determination as to Defendant C’s assertion: The rejection is merely a name truster.

Defendant C, in the course of operating the adult amusement room, only Defendant C, who is a enam-do, operated the amusement room on its own by making registration of business under the name of Defendant C and borrowing money from the Plaintiff, and Defendant C did not take part in it.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, and as seen earlier, it is difficult to accept this part of the Defendant C’s assertion, in light of the fact that the payment order that the Plaintiff filed against the Defendants was duly served with the Defendants’ domicile at the time of the request and became final and conclusive due to no objection.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제208조 제3항 제3호

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2016.04.26 2015가단87854

-서울남부지방법원 2019.09.04 2019가단2562

-인천지방법원 2012.11.07 2012고단8108

-부산지방법원 2017.01.12 2016나41828

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.17 2015가단5356505