logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 청주지방법원 2013.08.27 2012나2799
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The plaintiff's summary of the plaintiff's assertion is that the defendant, around August 2006, 8 million won as the check, 5 million won as the deposit account designated by the defendant on August 9, 2006, 5 million won as the deposit account designated by the defendant on November 2006, 5 million won in cash on January 25, 2007, 7 million won in cash on January 25, 2007, and 36% per annum for interest thereon, and the due date on April 25, 2007, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the interest or delay damages.

B. (1) The fact that the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 12 million, including KRW 7 million in cash (i.e., KRW 5 million) from the Plaintiff, or KRW 5 million from the Defendant’s bank account in the name of F (Defendant’s No. 2) on November 2, 2006, and KRW 15 million on November 15, 2006 (the Plaintiff’s assertion that it was around January 25, 2007 but there is no evidence to acknowledge it; therefore, the Defendant’s own assertion that it was around January 25, 2007) may not be disputed between the parties, or may be recognized by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement No. 2.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan amount of KRW 12 million and interest or delay damages to the plaintiff, except in extenuating circumstances.

(2) The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 8 million with a check around August 2006 and KRW 13 million with a cash around November 2006.

In light of the statement of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1 (a certificate) and Eul evidence Nos. 7 through 10, and the result of each seal imprint appraisal of Gap evidence Nos. 1-2, 3, Gap evidence Nos. 3, 6 through 9, 14 through 16 (including paper numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) and witness G of the court of first instance, it is insufficient to recognize that each seal affixed to the defendant's name side and amount column of the defendant's name, which is the preparation title, is affixed with the seal of the defendant, or that the above loan certificate was duly formed by the defendant, and it is otherwise recognized.

arrow