logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2018.09.20 2018나255
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

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

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. In the first instance court’s determination as to the legitimacy of an appeal for subsequent completion, the court rendered a judgment in favor of the Plaintiff on October 25, 2017 following the service of both a copy of the complaint and a notice of date for pleading against the Defendant by public notice, etc., on which the pleading was conducted. The original copy of the judgment of the first instance also was served on the Defendant by public notice, and the Defendant filed an appeal for subsequent completion on January 18, 2018 with the knowledge that the judgment was rendered by a certified copy of the judgment of the first instance on January 10, 2018, is obvious or obvious.

In such a case, the defendant was unable to observe the peremptory period, due to failure to know the progress and result of the instant lawsuit due to a cause not attributable to himself/herself (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2010Da75044, 75051, Jan. 10, 2013). Therefore, the subsequent appeal filed within two weeks after the cause ceases to exist is lawful.

2. According to the purport of the Plaintiff’s evidence No. 1 (including branch numbers for which a branch number exists; hereinafter the same shall apply) and the entire pleadings, it is recognized that the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate stating the purport that, around January 24, 2017, the Plaintiff shall be the obligee, the Defendant shall be the obligor, and the Plaintiff shall be the obligor, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff by February 1, 2017, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff shall pay KRW 25 million to C (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

3. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. From the beginning of July 2013 to January 2017, the Plaintiff lent money to the Defendant in total at least 100 times, and the Defendant recognized the said obligation and issued the instant loan certificate to the Plaintiff up to February 1, 2017, stating that the Plaintiff would pay KRW 25 million to the Plaintiff by January 24, 2017.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 25 million and damages for delay.

The Plaintiff’s money or vehicle fee lent from the Defendant to the vehicle price.

arrow