logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2017.09.01 2017가단2283
약속어음금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 99,902,739 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual rate of 6% from January 6, 2017 to September 1, 2017.

Reasons

1. The following facts are either disputed between the parties, or acknowledged based on Gap evidence 1, Gap evidence 5, Gap evidence 6, Gap evidence 7, Gap evidence 8-1, 2, and Gap evidence 9, and the whole purport of the pleadings.

On August 8, 2014, the Defendant agreed to borrow KRW 70,000,000 from the Plaintiff. On the same day, the Defendant issued a promissory note, which is the Plaintiff (hereinafter “ Promissory note 1”), with a face value of KRW 100,000,000 (including interest on the date of payment), and the due date of payment, January 8, 2015, and the payee’s promissory note, which is the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the Promissory Notes 1”). On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant were entrusted by a notary public to the South-west General Law Firm (No. 615, 2015, “No. 615,”).

On August 5, 2014, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant, respectively, and KRW 50,000,00 on August 16, 2014.

B. On August 19, 2014, the Defendant agreed to borrow KRW 50,00,000 from C and KRW 20,00,000 from D respectively, and issued a promissory note with the face value of KRW 100,000,00 (including interest on the date of payment), the due date of payment, February 19, 2015, and C with the due date (hereinafter “No. 2 Promissory Notes”). On the same day, C and the Defendant entrusted a notary public to another general law firm, and received a notarized deed (No. 648, 2014, hereinafter “notarial deed”).

C. On September 22, 2014, the Defendant borrowed KRW 90,000,00 from the Plaintiff, and among them, borrowed KRW 60,00,000 (including interest on the date of payment), the face value of KRW 90,000,000 (including interest on the date of payment), the due date of payment, April 22, 2015, and the payee’s promissory notes (hereinafter “third Promissory Notes”) were issued. On the same day, the Plaintiff and the Defendant commissioned a notary public to another general law firm on the third promissory notes, and then, the Plaintiff and the Nonparty issued a notarial deed as to the third Promissory Notes’s No. 781, 2014.

was prepared and delivered.

arrow