(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.05.08 2014가합6230

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) 수원지방법원 2015.05.08 2014가합6230

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts below the basis of facts may be found either in dispute between the parties or in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 7, together with the purport of the whole pleadings.

On or after August 30, 2007, the Plaintiff promised not to act against the denied Defendant with respect to any and all interference or assault, language violence, telephone violence, and invasion of privacy.

The Plaintiff, on September 30, 200 to August 30, 201, promised to pay KRW 500,000 to C head of the Tong each month’s living expenses until August 30, 201, prepared and issued a letter of loan (hereinafter “the letter of loan of this case”) with the content that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 65,000,000 from the Defendant until August 30, 2007 to the Defendant for the same day as follows (hereinafter “the letter of this case”). The Plaintiff, on August 30, 2007, prepared and issued a letter of loan (hereinafter “the letter of this case”).

2. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion was made effective, and the Plaintiff paid a total of KRW 22,609,000 to the passbook of the Plaintiff and the Defendant’s children including C as living expenses and child support until now. Since the amount to be paid according to the contents of each of the instant notes was not paid more than the amount to be paid according to the contents of the instant notes, and thus, deeming the Plaintiff to have failed to fulfill the conditions of each of the instant notes does not comply with the principle of good faith and the principle of equity, and the said minor amount payable should be offset against the said loan. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff KRW 65,00,000 and delay damages.

B. Although the Defendant did not actually borrow money from the Plaintiff, the Defendant’s assertion is invalid as it was forced by the Plaintiff’s intimidation (i.e., declaration of intent by coercion, and thus, is null and void as it is deemed null and void) and domestic affairs.

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원 2016.05.27 2015가단24072

-서울북부지방법원 2015.09.22 2014나7429

-울산지방법원 2015.10.28 2014나5807

-서울북부지방법원 2019.05.07 2018가단123380

-서울북부지방법원 2017.04.13 2016가단113594