(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단51173

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) 대구지방법원 2015.10.02 2014가단51173

부당이득금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the defendant's judgment against the plaintiff on March 7, 2006, and the above amount is against the plaintiff on March 7, 2006 (10 million won per limited partnership company C (10 million won) and the above amount until December 31, 2006.

(2) From April 2006, a stock company shall pay an amount of KRW 500,000 (500,000) each month.

③ On May 30, 2006, KRW 4,550,000 for Samsung Construction Co., Ltd.

5.30.Payments.

(4) Ten million won per deputy Construction Co., Ltd. shall be paid on June 30, 2006.

(A) The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 34,450,00 (= KRW 5,000,000 KRW 5,500,000,000 KRW 4,550,000,000) according to the contents of the loan certificate, barring any special circumstance, to the effect that the Defendant prepared and executed the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”). The Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed amount of KRW 34,450,000,000, KRW 4,550,000, KRW 100,000).

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant: (a) the Plaintiff would discount the amount of the check; (b) the Plaintiff demanded the preparation of the instant loan certificate; (c) the Plaintiff did not actually deliver the discounted amount; and (d) the Plaintiff’s check issued to the Defendant did not obtain a proper approval with the so-called bbbbbbbbbbbbbbbbs; (b) the loan certificate of this case is invalid; and (c) the Plaintiff would rather pay KRW 10 million to the Defendant by December 31, 2006, and even if the loan certificate of this case is valid, the Defendant’s obligation based on the loan certificate of this case expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

B. The Plaintiff did not deliver a discount to the Plaintiff on the ground that the loan certificate of this case 1 was invalid, as stated in subparagraph 1, and as stated in subparagraph 1, the Plaintiff did not deliver the discount.

The check issued by the plaintiff to the defendant shall not be approved.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2014.05.16 2012가합7984

-대전지방법원 천안지원 2018.05.25 2017가합561

-서울북부지방법원 2016.02.02 2015가단20930

-청주지방법원영동지원 2012.05.11 2010가단3123