(영문) 광주지방법원 장흥지원 2018.04.18 2017가단743

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) 광주지방법원 장흥지원 2018.04.18 2017가단743

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from September 14, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, and 3-1-2 of the judgment on the cause of the claim (the defendant asserts that Gap evidence No. 1-2 was forged, but according to the purport of Gap evidence No. 1-2 and the whole purport of pleadings and arguments, the fact that the document signed by the defendant can be acknowledged) and all pleadings, the plaintiff loaned a total of KRW 80 million to the defendant from January 12, 2007 to February 23, 2007, and the plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 30,000,000 from the defendant, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is liable to pay the remaining principal and interest for delay as requested by the plaintiff to the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription is based on the following: (a) the Defendant borrowed the said money for business purposes; and (b) the Plaintiff’s claim for the said money was extinguished by the five-year extinctive prescription.

According to each statement and the whole purport of oral argument as to Gap evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 3, and 2 (the document with the defendant's unmanned seal affixed according to the result of this court's unmanned appraisal), the defendant agreed on May 23, 2009 that the maturity of KRW 50,000 shall be August 23, 2009; the remaining maturity of KRW 30,000,000 shall be October 23, 2009; and the defendant again repaid to the plaintiff on July 28, 201 and agreed on October 23, 2009 as the repayment period of KRW 50,000,000, which remains after repayment with the defendant on May 27, 2012. Thus, the defendant agreed on the extension of the statute of limitations.

Therefore, the instant lawsuit was filed on August 31, 2017, before five years elapse from December 27, 2012, which was the date of the final repayment agreement, by submitting the written application for the instant payment order. As such, the Plaintiff’s re-claim pointing this out is reasonable, and the Defendant’s defense of extinction of prescription is therefore groundless.

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

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.29 2019가단5159092

-수원지방법원 2018.05.16 2017나10890

-광주지방법원 2020.05.15 2019가단535339

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.10.30 2018가단214790

-창원지방법원 2019.11.01 2019나51786