(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단140807

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단140807

대여금

Text

1. The defendant is based on the ratio of KRW 100,000,000 to 20% per annum from June 6, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 40 million to the defendant on April 10, 2013, and KRW 100 million on April 15, 2015 of the same month without fixing the due date for repayment. The defendant's representative director C sent a text message (Evidence No. 3) to the representative director D using the plaintiff's mobile phone to lend the original KRW 200 million to the defendant on September 22, 2013, that it is difficult for the plaintiff to provide circumstances because the KRW 100 million has not yet been leased, and the plaintiff thereafter urged the defendant to pay the above KRW 100 million to file the lawsuit in this case.

Therefore, the Defendant is obliged to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from June 6, 2014 to June 6, 2014, which is the day following the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, to the day of full payment, to the Plaintiff, when a considerable period of time has elapsed from the time when the repayment was urged by the Plaintiff.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendant lent KRW 100 million to the end of July 2013 by setting the repayment period as the end of July 1, 2013, and sought payment of damages for delay from August 1, 2013 to the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the repayment period was set as the end of July 2013 under the said loan agreement, and the Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is rejected.

3. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff did not lend the above KRW 100 million to the Defendant, but only paid KRW 100 million out of the down payment KRW 200 million out of the down payment of the exclusive supply contract for LED lighting products, etc. concluded on April 5, 2013 between the original Defendant, but in light of the facts recognized above, the Defendant’s assertion is rejected.

4. To accept part of the Plaintiff’s claim for conclusion

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단5033812

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단5037883

-서울서부지방법원 2016.07.21 2016가단5965

-광주고등법원(전주) 2020.05.14 2019나12645

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.07.24 2014가합1850