logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.07.17 2016가단70979
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 30,80,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 16, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On January 2, 2014, the Plaintiff is a corporation operating wholesale and retail business of energy machinery and equipment, and Nonparty D, the representative director of the Plaintiff, entered into an agreement with Nonparty E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Nonindicted Company”) on business cooperation with respect to marketing that provides its own business ability.

The main contents of the Convention were to provide D business and financial consulting, and to provide actual execution and technical support for the contracts attracting D by non-party company.

B. On June 22, 2015, the non-party company entered into a standard contract for ESCO investment business users (hereinafter “instant contract”) with the Defendant on June 22, 2015 through the business for non-party company D.

The content of the contract was that the non-party company provided technical assistance and construction support for the defendant's energy rationalization fund loan, but the defendant was required to use the factory's energy saving source with a high energy saving rate in order to obtain a loan for the energy rationalization fund.

C. Accordingly, the Defendant re-subcontracted to the Plaintiff the supply of the HPP to the Plaintiff;

G (TppP manufacturer) set up two 30 foot 10,000,000, the Defendant additionally ordered G to set up two 30,800,000,000,000.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without a partial dispute, Gap 2 to 7 evidence, Gap 10, 11, and Eul 1 each entry

2. The parties' assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion is obligated to return the said money to the Defendant, upon receiving a request from the Defendant to lend the necessary money from the Defendant at KRW 30,800,00,000, given that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 30,800,000 from the Defendant.

D. The defendant's argument is that the contract of this case was entered into with the non-party company D and the contract was implemented.

arrow