logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.01.15 2019나62512
약정금
Text

1. Of the part concerning the counterclaim in the judgment of the court of first instance, the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant) who exceeds the following amount ordering payment.

Reasons

1. The grounds for this part of the judgment on the principal suit are as stated in Paragraph 1 of the reasoning of the judgment of the first instance, except where the third party "or the above operation period" in the judgment of the first instance is deemed "or preliminary operation period" in the above operation period.

(Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act). The fact-finding and decision of the first instance court is justifiable even if the evidence duly adopted and examined by the first instance court is viewed as evidence No. 10 (including the provisional number) submitted by the Plaintiff in this court, and there is no error as alleged by the Plaintiff as the grounds for appeal.

2. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant lent KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff around May 2, 2012, and the Plaintiff did not repay the loan. Accordingly, the Defendant sought payment of the loan.

B. Comprehensively taking into account the purport of the entire argument as to the cause of the claim No. 1’s statement, the Plaintiff and C, as of May 2, 2012, borrowed KRW 25 million from the Defendant as of August 30, 2012, with a priority repayment of KRW 5 million, and KRW 20 million as of August 20, 2012, with a separate repayment of KRW 24,000,000,000,000,000 as of KRW 24,000,000,000 each month, may be recognized as having prepared a loan certificate (Evidence No. 1; hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate”; and, in view of the content of the above loan certificate’s loan certificate’s loan certificate’s loan certificate’s loan certificate’s loan, the Plaintiff and the Defendant should be deemed to have the existence of legal act in question, unless it is clear and acceptable to deny its content, and the Plaintiff and the Defendant may have the presumption of its obligation to repay the loan document of this case’s loan.

arrow