(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2013가단311961

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.02.13 2013가단311961

대여금반환

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 490,000,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s annual interest from May 28, 2013 to October 18, 2013, and the following.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 27, 2008, the Plaintiff entered into a credit transaction agreement with the Defendant on “corporate ordinary loan”, “60 million won”, “1.77% of the market interest rate”, “1.77% of the market interest rate”, and “9.27, 2008,” and provided a loan of KRW 600 million to the Defendant.

After that, the due date was extended on March 27, 2009.

B. As of May 27, 2013, the sum of the principal and interest on the above loans as of 962,941,716 won, the principal is 490,449,689 won, and the agreed delay interest rate is 17% per annum.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, each entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 490,000,000 won and damages for delay as part of the principal and interest of the above loan.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. Since the defendant with false conspiracy did not have the intent to bear the obligation of the loan, and the plaintiff also implemented the loan to B in the form of a debtor without the intent to pay the obligation of the loan to the defendant who is merely the nominal lender, the credit transaction agreement of this case is invalid as a false representation based on a false appearance.

In order to establish a false conspiracy, there is a difference between the truth and indication of the expression of intent and an agreement between the other party as to the inconsistency. If a third party directly signs and seals as the principal debtor or joint guarantor in loan-related documents, such as a monetary loan agreement, etc., the third party expressed that he is the debtor of the loan for consumption, and the third party has the intention to have another person use the loan under the name of the third party by avoiding the credit restrictions set by the financial institution, etc.

(2) If the principal and interest are to be paid at the expense of another person, the principal and interest shall not be paid.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2014.11.13 2013나43205

-부산지방법원 2016.08.30 2016가단7742

-대구지방법원영덕지원 2015.09.22 2014가단2162

-대법원 2015.12.24 2014다219187

-수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.02.28 2017가단54695