(영문) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.10.25 2016가단3200

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) 춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.10.25 2016가단3200

대여금

Text

1. As to Defendant B’s KRW 55,00,000 and KRW 25,000 among them, Defendant B shall be from May 1, 2010 to the Plaintiff, and the remainder 30,000.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 31, 2010, the Plaintiff leased KRW 25 million to Defendant B by setting the due date on April 30, 2010, and deposited the said money with a passbook in the name of Defendant C on the same day.

B. On May 10, 2010, the Plaintiff lent KRW 30 million to Defendant B, and deposited the said money with the head of Tong in the name of Defendant C on May 20, 2010.

[Based on the recognition] The items in Gap evidence 1-1, 2, and Gap evidence 2-2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. Defendant B’s claim against Defendant B is recognized to have led to the confession of all the Plaintiff’s assertion pursuant to Article 150(3) of the Civil Procedure Act. As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 5 million and KRW 25 million from May 1, 2010 on the date following the due date for repayment for the remainder of KRW 30,000,000 from June 21, 2010 to May 4, 2016, each of which is the delivery date of a copy of the instant payment order from June 21, 2010 to May 4, 2016, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The claim No. 1-1 of the defendant C does not have the signature and seal of the defendant C, and there is no evidence to prove that the seal affixed to the name of the defendant C is the defendant C, and it cannot be used as evidence to recognize the joint and several liability of the defendant C, and there is no other evidence to support that the defendant C guaranteed the debt of the loan to the plaintiff of the defendant C.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C is without merit.

3. Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is accepted, and the claim against the defendant C is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-민법

-민사소송법 제150조 제3항

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2015.08.06 2014가단81385

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.09.01 2017가단2359

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2016.06.14 2015가단8598

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.03 2014가단5347955

-부산지방법원 2016.03.04 2015가단78143