beta
(영문) 서울고등법원 2017.10.13 2017나9338

대여금

Text

1. The defendant (Counterclaim plaintiff)'s appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal are assessed against the Defendant-Counterclaim Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance cited by the defendant in the appeal of the court of first instance is not significantly different from the content alleged in the court of first instance, and even if examining the evidence submitted in the court of first instance and the evidence submitted in the court of first instance Nos. 25 and 26, the judgment of the court of first instance is justified.

Therefore, the reasoning for the judgment of the court concerning the instant case is as follows, except where the defendant added the judgment on the assertion emphasized by this court under Paragraph (2). Thus, the reasoning for the judgment of the court is as stated in the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Therefore, it is decided to accept it

2. In order to apply the rate of delay damages to all of the loan costs of this case, the Defendant asserts that in accordance with Article 7(3) of the Terms and Conditions of this case, in order to apply the rate of delay damages to all of the loan costs of this case, the Plaintiff sent the notice to the Defendant ten (10) days prior to the date on which the overdue interest is due under Article 7(3) of the Terms and Conditions of this case. The Plaintiff’s “Pre-Announcement Notice on default of Loans (No. 9-1)” sent on October 25, 2012 by the Plaintiff cannot be said to be a notice “pre-Announcement on Default of Loans” under Article 7(3) of the Terms and Conditions of this case, and even though the Plaintiff did not notify otherwise, it is unlawful to determine the amount of each loan interest of this case by applying the rate of delay damages as stipulated in each of the loan contracts of this case to determine the amount of each loan interest claim of this case by applying

However, unlike the general legal act, the interpretation of the terms and conditions is not based on the purpose or intent of each party to the contract, but on the basis of the average customer's possibility of understanding, but should be objectively and uniformly interpreted in consideration of the overall interests.

Article 7 of the Terms and Conditions of this case provides for the following:

(2) The debtor shall be subject to the following provisions: