(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.02 2014가단5253661

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 2016.06.02 2014가단5253661

약정금 반환 청구의 소

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay 2.4 million won to the Plaintiff and shall be 5% per annum from July 1, 2015 to June 2, 2016, and shall be from the next day.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff is to be paid interest of KRW 2 million each month, and the amount indicated in the column of the attached table to the Defendant is leased to the Defendant at each time, and was paid in one lump by the Defendant each time. As above, the amount repaid by the Defendant is first appropriated to the interest calculated at an annual interest rate of 30% under the Interest Limitation Act, and the remainder is 39,975,300 won, and the remainder is to be appropriated to the principal, and the Defendant is obligated to return the remainder to the Plaintiff. 2) The Plaintiff requested the Defendant to sell used cars. The Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 2,40,000,000,000,000,000

B. The Defendant’s assertion was that the Plaintiff invested in selling used cars for the first time. From the middle business, the Defendant invested funds to the persons who sold largephones in China. The Plaintiff was divided into the Defendant’s capital and profits, and the Plaintiff did not lend funds to the Defendant.

2. Determination

A. We examine whether there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff paid the amount to the Defendant as alleged by the Plaintiff, but whether the said amount can be deemed as a loan, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

There are many cases where a loan certificate is not prepared while lending money between the Plaintiff and the Defendant with personal friendly relationship.

In addition, the defendant also stated that the plaintiff paid some of the money at his own money if it is necessary, even if he did not receive any profit in the party examination, and that the defendant would make payment with the help of referring to the plaintiff or the non-party C to the amount that the plaintiff did not receive or could not receive, as seen in the recording book of the evidence Nos. 3 through 5.

참조조문

-이자제한법

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 마산지원 2021.04.29 2020가단2321

-부산지방법원 서부지원 2019.09.24 2018고단361

-대구지방법원 2015.12.09 2015나9088

-서울남부지방법원 2020.12.18 2019나68884

-울산지방법원 2015.09.17 2015나1949