logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2020.06.11 2019가단124629
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 15,00,000 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 21, 2018 to June 11, 2020, respectively.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and the Defendant have a pro rata relationship, and the Plaintiff respectively remitted to the Defendant KRW 20 million on July 8, 2016, and KRW 10 million on August 4, 2016, respectively.

(hereinafter referred to as “transfer”, “B remittance”, or “B remittance” in the order.

On July 22, 2018, the Defendant prepared and delivered the loan certificate (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”) with the following content to the Plaintiff:

The next certificate of use;

1. Principal: Daily fixed amount (10,000,000);

2. Date of repayment: Interest at the rate of October 3, 2018: Legal interest.

4. (Omission)

5. Creditors: A special agreement.

1. The above amount shall be paid at the rate of KRW 1.2 million with interest already paid from August 4, 2016 to July 22, 2018, and at the rate of KRW 5 million with interest accrued until the due date.

2. The amount other than the above amount is to be paid to the third person C who has been paid wages with the borrower's account.

【Ground for recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers), Eul No. 1, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. On the plaintiff's assertion as to the cause of claim, ①, ② remittance was made by means of a loan under a monetary loan contract between the plaintiff and the defendant. The loan certificate of this case was ② The above loan certificate of this case settled the principal and interest on the remittance amounting to KRW 15 million and made a payment agreement with the date of repayment set.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 20 million and delay damages for the above remittance-related loan, KRW 15 million based on the loan certificate, and delay damages for the loan certificate of this case.

3. Determination

A. As to the claim for return of a loan (i.e., remittance related), there are several reasons for remitting money to another person, the existence of a monetary loan contract does not directly prove the fact of a certain remittance.

The defendant lent 20 million won to the non-party C, but the defendant delivered money in the middle.

arrow