(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.05.26 2017나2005165

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) 서울고등법원 2017.05.26 2017나2005165

대여금반환

Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. The first instance court partially accepted the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the loan against the Defendant C and dismissed the remainder of the claim against the said Defendant and the claim against the Defendant B.

As to this, the Plaintiff appealed only to the claim for the return of the loan against the Defendants, the scope of the judgment of this court is limited to the Plaintiff’s claim for the return of the loan against

2. Basic facts

A. On October 20, 2003, the Plaintiff received interest of 2% per month at Defendant C’s request, and transferred KRW 100 million to E account with Defendant C’s representative director (hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. On April 7, 2006, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendants in money borrowed. On August 15, 2006, the Defendant agreed with Defendant C to pay KRW 60 million, out of the instant loans, to KRW 30 million until August 15, 2006, and KRW 30 million until December 31, 2006, and the Plaintiff to withdraw the complaint against the said Defendant (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

Defendant C paid only KRW 23 million out of the above KRW 60 million (part of the total amount of KRW 30 million on December 31, 2006).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 8, 9 evidence, Eul evidence 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

3. Determination

A. Defendant B and Defendant C engaged in the business of constructing and selling a new commercial building, and the Plaintiff lent the instant loan to the Defendants with the funds for the said business.

Therefore, Defendant B, jointly and severally with Defendant C, is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff unpaid and interest or delay damages on the instant loan.

B. The borrowing of the instant loan from Defendant B is Defendant C, and Defendant B did not have any fact of working together with Defendant C.

Therefore, Defendant B raises objection to the Plaintiff.

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2016.06.01 2015나2102

-서울고등법원 2016.01.12 2015나17786

-청주지방법원 2018.05.31 2017가단7965

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.05.25 2015가단47059

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.12.08 2016가단1517