logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.04.18 2016나2044415
이체금등 반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's appeal and the plaintiff's preliminary claim against the defendant B added at the trial are all dismissed.

2...

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. The Plaintiff and Defendant B’s money transaction Plaintiff provided loans to Defendant B, who operated the cosmetic Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “G”), a manufacturer of cosmetics, for several times from around 200 to October 31, 2008. Defendant B also set up a collateral security on his own real estate for the Plaintiff, and Defendant B paid the above loans from time to time.

B. In 2010, the Plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against Defendant B seeking payment of KRW 255,056,016 and damages for delay. The Defendant filed a counterclaim seeking payment of KRW 133,592,172 and damages for delay and seeking cancellation of the registration of creation of a neighboring mortgage.

[Attachment District Court 2010 Gohap4390 (principal lawsuit), 2010 Gohap9685 (Counterclaim); hereinafter “former lawsuit in this case”). The Plaintiff paid 1,99,000 won of loan around July 21, 200, 200 8,5260,000 won of loan from May 25, 2001 to June 30, 2001, and 8,0990 won of loan remaining 1,5730,000 won of loan from January 4, 2005 to October 31, 2008, and 1,034,391,0616 of loan from October 14, 2007 to April 30, 2001.

The first instance court of the previous lawsuit of this case dismissed the plaintiff's claim on the principal lawsuit and partly accepted the plaintiff's counterclaim. The first instance court of the previous lawsuit of this case determined that the above defendant paid not only the above loan but also the above loan to the plaintiff in excess of 36,043,984 won.

The plaintiff appealed against the judgment of the court of first instance (the purport of the claim was reduced to KRW 100,970,000), but the main claim was also dismissed (the monetary payment part of the defendant's counterclaim was changed to dismissal) and the above judgment of the appellate court was also dismissed.

arrow