(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.06.27 2018가단3730

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2019.06.27 2018가단3730

투자금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the Plaintiff’s claim

A. Upon the Defendant’s agent’s request, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on May 4, 2017, and KRW 5,000,000, totaling KRW 55,000,000 to the Defendant on October 10 of the same month. The Defendant did not grant the right of representation to the Defendant for domestic affairs C.

In light of the above legal principles, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the above KRW 55,00,000 and its delay damages in accordance with Article 125 of the Civil Act, on the ground that the Defendant, in accordance with the representation doctrine under Article 125 of the Civil Act, has the indication of granting the right of representation in the process of conducting development activities by purchasing 498m2 and 473m2 (hereinafter collectively referred to as the “instant land”).

B. Although the Defendant’s claim for the return of agreed amount was not the Defendant’s agent, the Defendant agreed to pay C’s investment amount to the Plaintiff, and the Defendant is obligated to pay C’s investment amount to the Plaintiff.

C. The Defendant filed a claim for the return of the investment amount due to the withdrawal of a company with the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 55,00,000 from the Plaintiff, constructed housing on the ground of the instant land, and agreed to pay the amount equivalent to the Plaintiff’s investment share in the purchase price. The Defendant violated the said promise by disposing of part of the instant land on the other hand. The Plaintiff revoked the said agreement and sought the return of the investment amount invested by the Plaintiff due

2. Determination:

A. According to the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the claim for the return of loan, the Plaintiff is found to have remitted the amount of KRW 50,000,000 to the Defendant on May 4, 2017, and KRW 5,000,000 on October 10 of the same month, but it is insufficient to recognize that the Defendant granted the right of representation in borrowing the above amount of KRW 55,00,000 on the sole basis of the evidence No. 4, and there is no other evidence to support this, and the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

To establish an expression agent under Article 125 of the Civil Code, C shall be the defendant to the plaintiff.

참조조문

-민법 제125조

유사 판례

-대법원 2015.04.23 2015다250

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.11.29 2016가단26691

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.11.30 2018가단3396

-서울남부지방법원 2017.06.15 2016가단236869

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.12.05 2017가합748