(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.06.29 2015가단113245

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 2016.06.29 2015가단113245

약정금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant purchased each parcel of land in Daegu-gu C and D and newly constructed two sub-loans on the ground thereof, and introduced E from the Plaintiff, who was a branch, to raise the project fund. From April 12, 2013 to January 16, 2014, borrowed a total of KRW 274 million (amount deducted from pre-paid interest) from E, and was also provided from the Plaintiff on August 23, 2013.

B. Around November 2013, the Defendant completed the construction of 1 loan, and the remainder of 1 unit construction cost was insufficient. Around December 2013, the Plaintiff entered into an agreement with the Plaintiff to make an investment in the Fund, and the Defendant to pay the amount of KRW 70 million to KRW 80 million in return.

However, on December 31, 2013, the Plaintiff did not make an investment under the above agreement, except for the investment of KRW 6 million in December 31, 2013.

C. On March 2014, the Defendant repaid the loan obligation to E with the completion money sold by the Defendant.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff returned a total of KRW 23 million on two occasions, but completed the remainder of 1 loan loan around April 2014, and then sold it on September 2014 and returned KRW 92 million to the Plaintiff.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2-7, 10, 11 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply), Eul 1-4, 9, 10, 11, and 18; witness F, and E's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Assertion and determination

A. The gist of the Plaintiff’s claim asserts that the Plaintiff, including the money that E paid to the Defendant, invested in the amount of KRW 3,60,000,000 as the capital for the said new loan construction project, and that, even though the Defendant agreed to distribute the profits of KRW 70,000,000 to the Defendant, it did not distribute the profits by returning only the investment principal. Thus, the Plaintiff’s claim

B. (1) Unlike the above-mentioned recognition, the Plaintiff’s payment to the Defendant by E is the amount that the Plaintiff borrowed from E and invested again to the Defendant.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2016.04.27 2015가합5277

-의정부지방법원 고양지원 2018.10.12 2017고단3865

-서울서부지방법원 2017.04.06 2016가단247400

-대구지방법원서부지원 2019.01.31 2018가합399

-서울고등법원 2018.05.31 2017나18400