beta
(영문) 수원지방법원안산지원 2016.07.15 2015가단32806

대여금(소멸시효 연장)

Text

1. The defendant's KRW 28,00,000 and its amount shall be 24% per annum from September 28, 1998 to December 29, 2015 to the plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 28, 1996, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 28,000,000 to the Defendant at interest rate of 24% per annum, and on December 28, 1997.

B. The Defendant paid only interest to the Plaintiff until September 27, 1998, and did not thereafter pay the interest and principal.

C. The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendant with Suwon District Court 2002Kadan26272, which sought the payment of the above loans and damages for delay, and on July 18, 2002, the court rendered a judgment to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 28,00,000 and interest calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from September 28, 1998 to the date of full payment,” and the above judgment was finalized on September 7, 2002.

According to the above judgment, the Plaintiff requested the Defendant to issue a seizure and collection order as to each of the deposit claims against Hana Bank Co., Ltd., Hanwon District Court, Koa Bank Co., Ltd., Ltd., National Bank, and National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and the Korea National Agricultural Cooperative Federation, and received the order of seizure and collection on March 2, 2011.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 3, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff a loan of KRW 28,00,000 and damages for delay at the rate of 24% per annum from September 28, 1998 to December 29, 2015, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, from September 28, 1998, to December 29, 2015, which is the date of the last payment of interest of the defendant. The following day to the date of full payment, is obliged to pay damages for delay at each rate of 15% per annum under the Act

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.