logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.04.04 2013가합28921
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 1,024,668,488 and KRW 660,00,000 among the costs, from March 8, 2013 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Amount of 2006-07-26 300,000,00 won for the remittance date of basic facts 2009-12-01-12-01,000,000 won 2009-12-12222,000,000 won for 2009-10-20,000 won for 2009-10-20,000 won for 2011-04-07 30,000,000 won for 2009-11-1630,000,000 won for the remittance date of basic facts;

A. From July 26, 2006 to June 8, 2011, the Defendant received a total of KRW 660 million as indicated below from the Plaintiff, who is one of his father’s fathers or C’s fathers, as follows:

B. On November 201, the Defendant: (a) around 30, 2011, with respect to the said KRW 660 million to the Plaintiff; (b) as of June 30, 2012, the maturity date of the said loan; (c) paid interest at 12% per annum from the date of loan to the date of full payment of the loan; (d) affixed a written agreement (Evidence No. 1; hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”) stating that the Plaintiff shall set up a right to collateral security for KRW 10 billion in the name of the Plaintiff on the land of the Republic of Korea, E, F, G, H, I, J, K, and H ground.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1, 5, 7, and Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The defendant's judgment on this safety defense cannot be known as to whether the plaintiff's attorney has legally granted his/her power of attorney. However, according to the Gap's evidence No. 6, the plaintiff's certificate that the plaintiff delegated his/her power of attorney to the law firm Rolos, affixed his/her seal imprint and affixed his/her certificate of personal seal impression. Thus, the plaintiff's attorney was granted his/her power of attorney, and there is no other evidence to deem that the power of attorney was defective.

Therefore, this part of the defendant's argument is without merit.

3. Judgment on the merits

A. The plaintiff asserts that the plaintiff filed a claim against the defendant for the payment of the loan amount of KRW 660 million under the above agreement and the delay damages therefor. In this regard, the defendant received KRW 660 million from the plaintiff, which is the plaintiff's mother, the non-party C, the plaintiff's mother, shall pay the plaintiff's passbook.

arrow