logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2019.12.11 2019가단118479
양수금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 149,191,034 won to the plaintiff.

2. The costs of the lawsuit are assessed against the defendant.

3.Paragraph 1.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On May 2, 2012, CF entered into a loan transaction agreement (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”) with the Defendant on a loan of KRW 700,000,000, interest rate fluctuation rate of KRW 0.11% (21% per annum), May 23, 2015 (hereinafter “instant loan transaction agreement”), and received the remittance of the loan on the same day.

B. The Defendant did not fully repay the principal and interest of the loan until the repayment date of the loan transaction agreement of this case expired. C Union transferred claims based on the loan transaction agreement of this case to the Plaintiff on June 24, 2019, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on the same day.

C. As of July 22, 2019, the Defendant did not repay interest KRW 149,191,034 under the loan transaction agreement of this case.

[Reasons for Recognition] Each entry of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the remaining interest KRW 149,191,034 under the loan transaction agreement of this case.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion 1, the Defendant asserts that the actual debtor of the loan transaction agreement in this case is D, and the Defendant merely lent the loan name and affixed his signature and seal on the loan transaction agreement, which makes it impossible to comply with the Plaintiff’s claim. 2) If a third party directly puts his/her signature and seal on the loan-related documents, such as the loan for consumption agreement, etc., and if he/she had the principal debtor or joint guarantor, he/she expressed that he/she is the debtor of the loan-loan contract, and even if he/she had the intention to have the third party make the loan repaid after using the loan, it cannot be deemed as an intention to vest it in the legal effect of the loan for consumption contract in the third party

In a specific case above.

arrow