(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.02.08 2015가단112373

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 2017.02.08 2015가단112373

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 62,400,000 as well as 20% per annum from July 18, 2015 to September 30, 2015 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Defendant is the commencement of new apartment construction works in Busan Metropolitan City C and D 73 households on the ground.

During the new construction process of apartment buildings, F participated in the construction by requesting the appraisal of land and entering into a contract for the termination work with a certain authority delegated by the defendant company.

B. Upon F’s request, on April 4, 2012, the Plaintiff remitted KRW 20 million to the account in the name of G and KRW 10 million to the account in the name of H, respectively. On March 28, 2013, the Plaintiff wired KRW 40 million to the account in the name of I.

C. On March 27, 2013, the Plaintiff and F drafted a sales contract with the seller’s “Defendant and F,” “Plaintiff,” “Plaintiff,” “62,400,000 won” (hereinafter referred to as the instant sales contract) with respect to E apartment Nos. 101, 903 (hereinafter referred to as “instant apartment”).

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1, 4, 6, 7, witness F, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff loaned money to the Plaintiff as the actual representative of the Plaintiff Company was insufficient for the E-Newly constructed construction capital, and the Plaintiff lent money to the account under the name of G on April 4, 2012, and transferred KRW 10 million to the account under the name of H. After which F recommended sale, the Plaintiff converted the sales contract for the instant apartment on March 27, 2013 into the part of the sales price, and completed the payment of the sales price by remitting KRW 40 million to the account under the name of F. However, the Defendant did not transfer the ownership of the instant apartment. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s sales contract is invalid as it was written by the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have the authority to prepare the sales contract in the instant case.

B. First of all, whether the instant sales contract (A No. 1) was forged or not.

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2014.11.12 2014고단852

-수원지방법원 2016.05.12 2015고단3052

-창원지방법원 통영지원 2018.01.30 2017고단1739

-수원지방법원 2014.08.13 2013고정3573

-대구지방법원 2017.07.20 2016나7379