(영문) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.08.29 2018가단113494

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) 인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.08.29 2018가단113494

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the full amount of KRW 34,954,210 and KRW 34,618,938 out of the above amount.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings as to the grounds for the claim Nos. 1, 4, and 5, the Defendant received a loan of KRW 38,30,000 from the Plaintiff on November 8, 2017 at the rate of 48 months of the loan period, interest rate of KRW 4.5% per annum, and interest rate of KRW 24% per annum. On June 27, 2018, the foregoing loan as of June 27, 2018 remains in principal amounting to KRW 34,618,938, interest rate of KRW 306,518, interest rate of KRW 306,518, interest rate of KRW 28,754. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above total amount of KRW 34,954,210, and the remainder of the loan amount of KRW 34,618,938 from June 28, 2018.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense, etc.

A. Regarding this, the defendant made a contract for the above loan by purchasing vehicles in the name of the defendant while promising to sell the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the company of the

Even if the Defendant entered into the pertinent loan agreement by deception, if a third party with respect to the declaration of intention of the other party makes a fraud or duress, such declaration of intent may be revoked only when the other party knew or could have known such fact.

Therefore, there is no evidence to prove that the plaintiff knew or could have known the fact of deception, and even further, according to the evidence No. 2, No. 3, and No. 1, the plaintiff contacted the defendant to confirm the loan's intention, and the defendant directly confirmed the loan's contract.

유사 판례

-인천지방법원부천지원 2019.03.27 2018가단122146

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.08.22 2018가단3542

-청주지방법원 제천지원 2017.02.22 2016가단21885

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단5222186

-대구고등법원 2015.11.03 2014나3239