(영문) 대구지방법원안동지원 2016.11.30 2016가단3324

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) 대구지방법원안동지원 2016.11.30 2016가단3324

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 1 of the facts of recognition, the Plaintiff may recognize the fact that on June 7, 2010, the Plaintiff leased KRW 100 million to the Defendant with the interest rate of KRW 18% per annum and the due date of repayment on October 7, 2010.

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay the loan of KRW 100 million and the agreed interest and delay damages to the plaintiff, unless there are other special circumstances.

B. 1) The defendant defenses that the statute of limitations expired. The defendant's defense against the statute of limitations expired. Since the defendant is a merchant as a stock company, the above monetary loan is presumed to be an act conducted for business (a supplementary commercial activity) and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the above loan act was not a commercial activity, the statute of limitations period as a commercial claim is five years. It is apparent that the above loan claim was filed on July 25, 2016, which was five years from October 7, 2010, and the above lawsuit was filed on July 25, 2016. Therefore, the above defense of the defendant is reasonable. 2) The plaintiff agreed to extend the statute of limitations as at the time of the above loan, and it was extended at the defendant's request, and thus, the lawsuit of this case has not been filed at the time when five years have not yet passed since it was extended until April 1, 2013, and the defendant's representative director C, who was the above representative director, had continued to withdraw from the above statute of limitations.

However, it is not sufficient to acknowledge the above extension agreement or acceptance of obligation solely with the statement of evidence No. 5, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it, and the plaintiff's above assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 평택지원 2018.10.23 2018가단3309 (1)

-대구지방법원 2016.12.07 2016나8136

-수원지방법원 2016.12.27 2016나60621

-서울동부지방법원 2016.11.11 2016가단21965

-광주지방법원 2017.10.17 2017노2840