(영문) 광주지방법원 2018.08.08 2017나58280

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) 광주지방법원 2018.08.08 2017나58280

대여금

Text

1. Upon the claim that the court changed the exchange in this court, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 70,000,000 and this shall apply.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. 1) The Plaintiff and the Defendant have continued monetary transactions for a long period from around 2009 to around 2013, including lending each other and receiving repayment. (2) On September 8, 2014, the Plaintiff and the Defendant settled the previous monetary transaction relationship and agreed to pay the Defendant’s obligations to the Plaintiff at KRW 70 million and to pay the Defendant’s interest rate of KRW 1% per month from September 2014.

(hereinafter referred to as the “instant agreement”). [The grounds for recognition] did not dispute, as stated in Gap’s Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, 39, 43, and 44, as a result of the verification of CD files by the court of first instance, the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 70 million and the amount calculated by applying each ratio of 1% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 1, 2014 to May 14, 2018, on which the application for modification of the purport of the claim was served on the Plaintiff from September 1, 2014 to May 11, 2018.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant claimed compensation for damages sustained by the plaintiff in the course of monetary transaction with the defendant's person, and the defendant only demanded the plaintiff to repay KRW 70 million to the plaintiff to get out of such situation and did not prepare the certificate of loan. The above declaration of intent is different from the defendant's intention, and the plaintiff knew or could have known such fact, and thus, it is invalid in accordance with the proviso of Article 107 (1) of the Civil Act.

B. In a declaration of intention that is not a true intention, the term “author” refers to the idea of the voter who intends to express a specific content, and the marker does not mean that it is true in mind.

Therefore, even if the voter did not reach the truth of the expression of intention, if he expressed a specific expression of intention.

참조조문

-민법 제107조 제1항

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 2016.05.18 2015나17706

-청주지방법원 2017.04.20 2016가단115753

-부산지방법원 2020.04.24 2019나55477

-부산지방법원 2017.07.13 2016나5921

-대법원 2015. 8. 27. 선고 2015다211630 판결