(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.10.16 2018가단5050068

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 2018.10.16 2018가단5050068

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Han Bank Co., Ltd., one bank’s loan claims (hereinafter “one bank”) entered into a smart loan agreement with the Defendant on a loan limit of KRW 36,000,000 with the Defendant around 200, and changed the loan limit of KRW 32,400,000 by an additional agreement around September 27, 2004.

According to the above agreement, interest shall be paid on the settlement date of each month set by the bank, and the principal of the loan shall be freely repaid, but the full repayment shall be made at the expiration of the credit period

Under the above passbook loan agreement, the Defendant withdrawn and used 32,400,000 won, which is the maximum amount, from February 22, 2010, and began to delay from February 22, 2010. The remainder of the principal and interest of the loan as of May 31, 2013 reached KRW 31,923,781, and the aggregate of the interest and interest accrued due to unpaid amounts and interest accrued at KRW 18,615,075.

B. On June 28, 2013, one bank transferred the principal and interest of the instant loan to the Plaintiff. At that time, the Plaintiff was delegated with the authority to notify the assignment of the right and notified the Defendant of the assignment of the right.

C. The remainder of the principal and interest of a loan remaining as of January 25, 2018 as of January 25, 2018 reaches KRW 31,923,781, the aggregate of the principal and interest of the loan, and outstanding interest and overdue interest at KRW 43,194,637.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 through 5, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Defendant asserts that the claim of the instant loan has expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription.

In this case, as seen earlier, although the loan maturity was set on September 7, 2010, the loan maturity was previously set on the loan maturity, but it lost the benefit of time starting from February 22, 2010, which was earlier, and thus, the period of extinctive prescription will run from that time.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance to recognize the interruption of extinctive prescription, this case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.14 2017가단107009

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.14 2014가합573879

-대전지방법원 2016.10.14 2015나9019

-대전지방법원 2016.12.15 2016가단218840

-대구지방법원 안동지원 2018.04.25 2017가단3574