logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.11.17 2016가단23690
대여금
Text

1. Defendant B’s 60,000,000 won and the interest rate of 15% per annum from July 5, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant B

A. The indication of claim: Defendant B’s claim against the Plaintiff on February 18, 2008, the issue date of which is KRW 120,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000,000

(b) Applicable legal provisions: Judgment on deemed confession (Article 208 (3) 2 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. Plaintiff’s claim against Defendant C

A. In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence No. 1 and witness Eul's testimony, the plaintiff loaned KRW 100 million to Eul upon the request of the defendant C who operated the defendant Eul Co., Ltd. (hereinafter "E") on or around February 18, 2008. At the time, the defendant C guarantees the return of the above borrowed money to the plaintiff. The purport of the issue date is to guarantee the return of the above borrowed money to the plaintiff, the issue date is the amount of KRW 120,000 won per face value, KRW 120,000 won per face value, KRW 120,000 won per face value, KRW 1.20,000 won per face value, KRW 1.20,000, KRW 1.20,000 per face value, and KRW 23, 2008.

According to this, Defendant C stated to the effect that the Plaintiff filed a claim for a promissory note amounting to KRW 100 million against the Plaintiff on the ground of the claim of the Plaintiff, but stated in the preparatory document submitted on July 19, 2016, the purport of the claim for a loan (guaranteed debt) was stated at the first date for pleading, and stated that the purport of the claim was to be filed under the civil law at the first date for pleading.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Plaintiff’s 60 million won among the above KRW 100 million claims against the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have guaranteed the return of the claim. As to the name of the presiding judge as to whether the Plaintiff would expand the claim on the first date for pleading, the purport of the claim in this case shall be expanded.

arrow