(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단24240

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.02.10 2016가단24240

대여금

Text

1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 18% per annum from November 7, 2015 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff indicated the claim (1) on September 2, 2014, and the same month.

3. One million won, and the same month;

4. One million won, and the same month;

6. A total of KRW 32 million was determined and lent at 24% per annum.

(2) On January 5, 2015, the Plaintiff: (a) on January 5, 2015, and the same month to Defendant B.

6. A total of eight million won was determined and lent at 18.72% per annum on interest.

(3) Defendant B paid interest on each of the above loans to the Plaintiff until November 6, 2015.

(b) Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act);

2. The Plaintiff’s determination as to the claim against Defendant C, as the co-representative of the company’s company, Defendant C, the wife of Defendant B, operated the said company. Defendant C borrowed a total of KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff as the operating fund of “D” with Defendant B. Thus, Defendant C is jointly and severally liable with Defendant B.

According to the evidence No. 2, Defendant C was registered as a joint business proprietor of “D” around the time of lending the above KRW 50 million, and the Plaintiff is recognized as having received interest on loans under the name of “D” through four times from September 2, 2014 to September 6, 2014, but the Plaintiff requested the Plaintiff to lend money. However, in light of the Plaintiff’s statement that the Plaintiff was registered as the business operator of “D” to obtain loans under his/her name and the fact that the Plaintiff was not aware of the purpose of the lending, and that the Defendant C was deemed not to have actually engaged in the operation of “D”, the facts acknowledged earlier alone cannot be deemed as having borrowed KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff, and no other evidence exists to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s assertion otherwise.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C cannot be accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant B is justified, and the defendant.

참조조문

-민사소송법 제208조 제3항 제3호

유사 판례

-울산지방법원 2019.08.23 2018가단21943

-서울서부지방법원 2020.10.30 2020나46032

-서울남부지방법원 2015.01.16 2013가단223251

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.12 2013가합16986 (1)

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.08 2018나32263