logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2020.06.19 2019나37223
약정금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, as to KRW 185,010,316 and KRW 185,00,000 among the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s KRW 185,00,000 among them, March 14, 2015.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Since December 12, 2001, the Defendant’s birth C (name prior to the opening of name: D) operated the Mescing and Mescing the business name under the trade name of “G” from Eunpyeong-gu Seoul around December 12, 2001, by solely representing himself/herself or the Defendant or as a joint representative for himself/herself and the Defendant. In addition, from March 18, 201, the Defendant’s birth changed its business registration under the trade name of “H” as the representative of the Defendant at the same place and operated the same business.

B. C, while operating the above business, opened a deposit account in the name of the Defendant, traded money necessary for the transaction, or issued a virtual coefficient check.

C. From July 16, 2009 to September 7, 2009, the Plaintiff lent to C a total of KRW 125 million. On September 7, 2009, C prepared and awarded a loan certificate of KRW 125 million to the Plaintiff, and on March 1, 2011, the Plaintiff again prepared and issued a loan certificate of KRW 125 million to the Plaintiff as to the said KRW 125 million.

Since then, the Plaintiff lent C total of KRW 20 million on March 8, 2012, KRW 20 million on April 6, 2012, and KRW 20 million on June 15, 2012.

E. As above, C used the money borrowed from the Plaintiff as the operating fund of the above interior company, or used it for the settlement of household checks issued under the name of the Defendant. On May 7, 2013 between the Plaintiff, the Defendant, and C, written a loan certificate with respect to KRW 185 million in total, including the above KRW 125 million and KRW 60 million, as follows:

(A) No. 1-2; hereinafter “this case’s loan certificate. The defendant defenses that the above loan certificate was modified by the plaintiff, but the defendant’s above assertion is not accepted as follows). The debtor promises, subject to the following agreement, to borrow the above loan and perform it in good faith as agreed upon.

1. [Fals].

arrow