(영문) 춘천지방법원 2016.08.31 2015가단4385

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) 춘천지방법원 2016.08.31 2015가단4385

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The facts that the Plaintiff leased KRW 40,000,000 to the Defendant on March 30, 2011 by setting the interest rate of KRW 24% per annum on the grounds of the claim do not conflict between the parties or can be recognized in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in subparagraph 1. Thus, the Defendant is obliged to pay the Plaintiff the loan of KRW 40,000,000 and interest thereon, barring any special circumstances.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). 2. Determination on the Defendant’s defense, etc.

A. The Defendant’s defense that all of the above loans were repaid by the Defendant. According to the evidence No. B No. 1, the Defendant’s defense that the above loans were repaid to the Plaintiff is as follows: KRW 10,000,000 on April 1, 201; and the same year.

5.6,000,000 won, and the same year.

5.4.6,00,000 won, and the same year.

5. 31.13,00,000 won, and the same year.

7.1. 5,400,000 won, and the same year;

8. It can be recognized that the repayment was made by remitting the total of KRW 42,400,000,000,000, and if the repayment was made with interest of the loan principal of this case and the agreed interest rate of KRW 24,000,00, the total amount of the principal and interest of the loan claim of this case was extinguished by the repayment, as shown in the attached calculation sheet.

The defendant's defense is justified.

B. The plaintiff asserts that 42,400,000 won, which the defendant remitted as above, is not for the repayment of the debt of the loan of this case, but for the loan of 1.80,000 won to C or the Lone Star Co., Ltd., the plaintiff's interest of 30,000 won per month was paid by the plaintiff, instead of for the repayment of the loan of this case.

In regard to the assertion that the obligor paid the money as the repayment of a specific obligation, the obligee recognized the receipt by the obligee, and if the obligee asserts that it was appropriated for the repayment of another obligation, the obligee had agreed on the existence of other claims and the satisfaction of other claims.

shall assert and prove that other claims are priority in legal appropriation.

Supreme Court Decision 199 delivered on 199.

유사 판례

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.05.10 2017가단3921

-대구지방법원서부지원 2015.04.02 2014가단35369

-서울남부지방법원 2015.11.27 2015나51956

-부산고등법원 2017.11.29 2017나53708

-수원지방법원 2018.05.16 2017나77831