logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.07 2014가합61987
대여금
Text

1. All of the plaintiffs' claims are dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit are assessed against the plaintiffs.

Reasons

1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. The Plaintiff A’s assertion 1) The Plaintiff asserted as follows, and the Plaintiff claimed a loan of KRW 50,000,000 against the Defendant and a delay damages therefor.

B) Plaintiff A is the E Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “E”) on December 24, 2012.

(C) Upon introduction, the Defendant loaned KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant 3% of interest per month, and three years for the lending period, and the Defendant concluded a special agreement that the Defendant would lose the benefit of the lending period when the Defendant breached the contract. Since the Defendant did not pay interest from July 2, 2013 and lost the benefit of the period, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the said KRW 50,00,000,00 to the Plaintiff. (c) The representative of E is F, and E raised funds by means of offering the Defendant’s own land H (hereinafter “Defendant’s land”) as collateral.

In other words, the plaintiff A also lent the above 50,000,000 won based on the above method, and the monetary transaction agreement (Evidence A No. 1) between regular members prepared at the time is prepared by the E employee delegated by the defendant.

In addition, when lending the land owned by the Defendant as above, the Plaintiff A was set up a right to collateral security of KRW 60,000,000 with respect to the land owned by the Defendant.

2) The Defendant’s statement of monetary transaction (No. 1) between his/her regular members is a forged agreement that is written by F using the Defendant’s seal without the Defendant’s consent. The Defendant did not borrow money from the Plaintiff. (b) According to the witness I’s testimony as to the forgery of the monetary transaction agreement (No. 1) between his/her regular members, it is recognized that E’s employee affixed the seal of the Defendant’s name on the monetary transaction agreement between his/her regular members (No. 1).

However, the testimony of the witness I is that the above seal is the seal of the defendant produced by the defendant, and the above employee A of the monetary transaction agreement between the defendant and the regular member.

arrow