(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.06.11 2018가단4873

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2019.06.11 2018가단4873

청구이의

Text

1.(a)

The defendant's notary public against the plaintiff is a monetary loan contract of No. 423 of 2013 in the document of joint law office.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff’s maturity period from the Defendant is the same year.

5.15. A decision was made on 15.10 million won.

B. On April 3, 2013, D, an agent of the Plaintiff and the Defendant, entrusted a notary public to prepare a notarial deed stating that “a loan of KRW 100 million is due and due on May 15, 2013,” and completed the notarial deed of this case.

There is no content as to the agreed person in the notarial deed of this case.

C. The Plaintiff paid 48 occasions from June 17, 2013 to February 13, 2018 as indicated in the “payment date” and “payment amount” column in the attached Table 1 to the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1, 2, 4, 5, and 6's statements, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The plaintiff asserts that the compulsory execution based on the Notarial Deed of this case should not be permitted, inasmuch as the plaintiff fully pays the debt on the Notarial Deed of this case.

Since the Defendant agreed to pay interest calculated at the rate of 2 to 3% per month on the above loan to the Plaintiff, the Defendant asserts that the total amount of principal and interest on the instant claim on the Notarial Deed reaches KRW 100,050,674 as of the present date despite the Plaintiff’s repayment

3. Determination

A. Inasmuch as there is no evidence to prove that there was an agreement or designation on appropriation of obligation between the Plaintiff and the Defendant, the amount repaid by the said Plaintiff to the Defendant ought to be appropriated in the order of expenses, interest, and principal pursuant to Article 479(1) of the Civil Act.

In addition, in cases where one of the parties asserts that there is a monetary loan for consumption and seeks a payment of interest based on the agreed rate, barring any special circumstance, damages for delay for the period after the maturity date of the loan claim shall be deemed to have been claimed according to the agreed rate, and even if the agreed rate is not recognized, the purport of claiming damages for delay at

This is.

참조조문

-민법 제479조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울북부지방법원 2020.11.04 2019가합1552

-대법원 2017. 9. 26. 선고 2017다22407 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.07.23 2019나80758

-부산지방법원 2019.07.04 2019나187

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.08.08 2018가합193