logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2015.08.26 2014나7100
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

2. Upon the plaintiff's preliminary claim added at the trial, the defendant shall be the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The following facts do not conflict between the parties, or can be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in each entry in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, 4, 5, 8, 9-4, 11.

On April 2, 2009, the Plaintiff lent KRW 110,000,00 to E, who is the husband of the Defendant, to E, as of April 2, 2009.

(hereinafter referred to as the "debted loan of this case")

On April 2, 2009, the Defendant concluded a sales contract with the Plaintiff on April 2, 2009 with respect to D apartment 108, 103, Dong 103 (hereinafter “instant apartment”) in the Ulsan-gu Seoul metropolitan land readjustment project district, Ulsan-gu, which is owned by Pyeongtaek-gu Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “instant apartment”), and agreed as follows.

(hereinafter referred to as the instant security agreement). In the event of the completion of the repayment of the borrowed loan obligation by July 31, 2009, the sales contract becomes null and void.

In the event that the repayment of the loan repayment obligation of this case is not made by July 31, 2009, the defendant acquired the apartment of this case and completed the registration of ownership transfer in the name of the plaintiff with respect to the apartment of this case.

C. On October 29, 2004, the instant apartment was sold in the voluntary auction procedure on December 19, 2014, and was owned by a third party.

The Plaintiff was repaid KRW 49,536,340 out of the loan debt of this case by F, a joint and several surety for the debt of this case, E and F.

2. The Plaintiff asserts that the Defendant borrowed the instant loan or jointly and severally guaranteed it with the Defendant. However, as seen earlier, the said sales contract concluded between the Defendant and the Plaintiff merely purports to provide the instant apartment as security for the instant loan obligation, and it cannot be deemed that the Defendant borrowed the instant loan or jointly and severally guaranteed the instant loan obligation with E.

arrow