logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2020.02.07 2019가단8715
대여금등
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 100,000,00 and 5% per annum from July 1, 2014 to July 9, 2019.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 12, 2014, the Plaintiff entered into a contract with Defendant B to lend KRW 100,000,000 for Defendant B’s business (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) and leased KRW 100,000,000 (hereinafter “instant loan”) on the same day to Defendant B.

B. On February 13, 2014, the Defendants: (a) prepared a certificate of borrowed money (No. 1; hereinafter “the instant certificate of borrowed money”) with the following contents as to the instant loan obligations; (b) affixed a seal or signature (in the case of Defendant B and C, affixed the seal, and signed in the case of Defendant D) on each of the Defendants’ names; and (c) delivered it to the Plaintiff:

(each seal and signature shall be omitted). The next letter of gold

1. Creditors: A;

2. Obligor: ① E company B (E company B) G (2) G (A) G (D) G in Young-si in Gyeonggi-do (D) G (D) G (D) G in Young-si in Gyeonggi-do.

1. Daily gold: 135,000,000 Won per day, (135,00,000 Won per day) borrowed the above amount and agreed as follows:

2. The above amount shall be repaid by the end of June, 2014;

2. Interest on the above borrowed money shall be KRW 5,000,000 ( KRW 5,00,000) per day until the due date for payment.

The facts that there is no dispute over the said creditor A Ha [founded Grounds for Recognition] on February 13, 2014, the entries in Gap evidence 1 and 2, the witness's testimony and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. Summary of the parties' arguments

A. Under the Plaintiff’s loan certificate, the Defendants are obligated to pay the Plaintiff the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 100,000,000 and the damages for delay after the due date specified in the loan certificate.

B. Defendant D1) merely signed the loan certificate of this case as a observer, and thus, does not bear any obligation accordingly. (ii) Even if Defendant D’s liability is recognized pursuant to the loan certificate of this case, it actually used the loan of this case.

arrow