(영문) 청주지방법원 2018.11.21 2016가단113078

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) 청주지방법원 2018.11.21 2016가단113078

대여금

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 40,00,000, and KRW 100,000,000 to the Plaintiff B, and their respective money from December 21, 2016.

Reasons

1. Plaintiff A and B’s claim

A. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings, the following facts are recognized in the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (in the case of the establishment of a petition, the following facts are acknowledged.

1 E, August 23, 2016, in the name of the defendant, drafted an agreement with the plaintiff A with the following contents:

0. Document title 0: A debtor: A0,000,000 won of the borrowed amount of 0,000 won for the Incorporated Incorporated Corporation; I promise to borrow and implement the following provisions:

1. The above amount shall be the amount of investment in D Co., Ltd.;

2. Ten percent of the shares in the company shall be transferred as compensation for the amount invested, 10 percent of the earnings shall be transferred, and the company shall be registered as a director;

3. Even if the profit is paid once, the obligor shall repay the principal if the obligee requests it in arrear; and

4. Profits:

9.As from 30.0

2) On August 23, 2016, E means a loan of KRW 100 million (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant agreements”) between the Plaintiff and the Defendant under the name of the Defendant, as indicated in each of the instant agreements.

) As a result, the two agreements (hereinafter referred to as “each of the instant agreements”) as referred to in the above 1 were drawn up.

B. As to the plaintiffs' assertion that they sought the payment of each of the instant agreements, the defendant prepared each of the instant agreements without the power of representation, and thus, each of the instant agreements was forged, and even if not, the amount of each of the instant agreements is an investment bond with no agreement to guarantee the principal, and thus, the defendant did not have a duty to return the principal amount to the defendant.

C. 1) First of all, we examine whether E has the authority to prepare each of the instant agreements. The following facts or circumstances, namely, ① E and F are agricultural company G Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G Co., Ltd.”) that operated mushroom cultivation business, by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in each of the statements in subparagraphs 3 through 9.

substantial. of this section.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2019.11.20 2019나307582

-광주지방법원 2017.10.13 2016가단17113

-서울동부지방법원 2019.09.19 2017가단25155

-서울동부지방법원 2020.10.21 2018고정229

-울산지방법원 2014.06.20 2014가단8034