logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.25 2014가단212949
양수금
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 19, 2004 to November 25, 2015.

Reasons

1. The fact that C, on October 19, 2004, lent KRW 100,00,000 to the Plaintiff at an annual interest rate of 5% (hereinafter “instant loan”); C, on June 5, 2014, transferred the loan claim of KRW 100,00,000 to the Plaintiff; and notified the Defendant on June 17, 2014, the fact that C, on June 17, 2014, transferred the said assignment of claim does not conflict between the parties; or that it is recognized by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings in each entry in subparagraphs 1 through 4.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff as the transferee the interest or delay damages from October 19, 2004, which is the lease date.

However, the Plaintiff sought payment of damages for delay as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the day following the day on which the copy of the complaint of this case was served, but in the case of a loan for consumption for which the time of return was not determined, the lender shall demand the return thereof with a reasonable period fixed. As such, damages for delay on the loan shall be calculated from the day after the lapse of a reasonable period from the time when the peremptory notice was received.

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the instant loan prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, around July 3, 2014, which appears to have a considerable period from July 3, 2014, when the Defendant notified the Plaintiff of the return of the instant loan from the Plaintiff, the repayment period of the instant loan shall arrive and the damages for delay shall accrue from the next day. Thus, the part of the Plaintiff’s claim in excess is without merit.

Therefore, the defendant's objection against the plaintiff as to the existence or scope of the obligation from October 19, 2004, which was the loan 100,000,000 won, and the loan 10,000 won.

arrow