(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.21 2013가합92601

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.21 2013가합92601

보증채무금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Under the overall purport of the statement and pleading evidence No. 1, the plaintiff, as of December 12, 2001, as of December 12, 2001, with D, intends to invest KRW 110,000,000 in C (the plaintiff among them) with D, with the agreement as follows (hereinafter "the agreement of this case"), and paid KRW 80,000,000 to C, and among the agreement of this case, the amount of KRW 80,000 shall be stated in the guarantor's debt guarantee column against the plaintiff of this case, and the fact that the defendant's name is stated in the defendant's name and the defendant's seal is affixed to the above name.

Article 2 (Guarantee of Return on Investment) C shall pay 8% of the sales price per 12th day of the 3.5 million won per month and 25% of the sales price per 3.5 million won per 12th day of the month to the Plaintiff as the investment revenue.

Article 3 (Investment Period and Return of Principal) The investment period of this Agreement shall be as of June 30, 2002, and the defendant shall return without any condition when the plaintiff requests the return of principal.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff asserts that the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the return of the profit and the investment principal because he/she jointly and severally guaranteed the payment of the profit and the return of the investment principal. Accordingly, the defendant asserts that the defendant's stamp image of the agreement

B. Determination 1) The Defendant’s name, resident registration number, and address are indicated in the instant agreement, and the Defendant’s seal is affixed next to the name, but in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of appraiser E’s appraisal, it can be acknowledged that the Defendant’s seal affixed next to the Defendant’s name among the instant agreement is different from the Defendant’s seal affixed on the seal imprint register. Thus, the Defendant’s joint and several surety that the Defendant guaranteed the Defendant’s obligation to return investment money, etc., corresponding to the Plaintiff’s assertion, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is not admitted as evidence.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2015.05.13 2014나59929

-서울동부지방법원 2019.06.19 2018나3528

-대구지방법원 2017.12.13 2016가단41170

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.07.24 2018나14976

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.09.27 2015가단104374