(영문) 부산지방법원 2016.11.17 2016가단19004

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) 부산지방법원 2016.11.17 2016가단19004

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 24 million at the rate of 15% per annum from April 12, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Defendant, on August 6, 2008, prepared a loan certificate stating that “the principal shall borrow KRW 52 million from A” (hereinafter “the loan certificate in this case”) to the Plaintiff is either not disputed between the parties, or may be acknowledged by taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1.

2. The assertion and judgment

A. On August 6, 2008, the Plaintiff lent KRW 52 million to the Defendant as stated in the instant loan certificate, and the Defendant paid only KRW 28 million to the Plaintiff. As such, the Plaintiff is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 24 million and the delay damages therefrom.

(2) The Plaintiff paid to the Defendant KRW 30 million on January 23, 2006, and KRW 15 million on February 9, 2006, with the investment money for a golf appliance agency business operated by the Defendant (hereinafter “instant business”). As the instant business was poor, the Plaintiff forced the Defendant to return the investment money while interfering with the instant business, and was issued and delivered the instant loan certificate by the Defendant on August 6, 2008.

Therefore, the loan certificate of this case is invalid as written by the plaintiff's strong pressure.

On the other hand, the defendant paid 33.5 million won to the plaintiff with the return of the investment amount.

In addition, the plaintiff brought golf products from time to time at the instant place of business, and as the value exceeds 8.4 million won in total, this amount should also be deducted from the plaintiff's claim amount.

B. (1) In order to constitute a declaration of harm by coercion, the other party should have expressed his/her intent to feel fear by unlawfully notifying a certain harm. Here, for the purpose of making a threat of harm illegal, the harm and injury that the benefits pursued by the threat of harm and injury are not justifiable, or that is notified to the other party as a means of coercion, in light of the transaction concept and overall circumstances at the time of the coercion act.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.06.11 2014나40357

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.05.17 2016가단27443

-부산지방법원 2018.08.29 2017나54463

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.06.24 2015가단28073

-서울동부지방법원 2017.09.08 2017가단1852