logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2016.10.20 2016가단1493
부당이득금반환
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 80,500,000 and the interest rate therefor from January 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

The fact that the Plaintiff lent the sum of KRW 150,50,000 to Defendant B, as shown in the attached Table 1 “B” (hereinafter “instant loan”), and that Defendant B repaid the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 74,00,000,000 among the above loans, as shown in the attached Table 2 “the repayment details” to the Plaintiff, does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, unless there are other special circumstances, Defendant B is liable to pay the remaining debt out of the loan debt of this case to the Plaintiff.

On this issue, Defendant B asserts that the extinctive prescription of the instant loan obligation has expired.

In this case, the loan claim in this case is deemed to have not been set separately, and the period of repayment of the loan in this case is deemed to have run from the date of each loan. As to the loan claim in this case as of January 16, 2008 among the loan claim in this case, the lawsuit in this case was filed before the lapse of 10 years from the loan date, but the lawsuit in this case was filed for the remaining parts after the lapse of 10 years from the loan date.

However, during the period from December 30, 2007 to January 30, 2008, Defendant B paid to the Plaintiff totaling KRW 34 million as part of the instant loan obligation. Accordingly, Defendant B indicated to the Plaintiff that the instant loan obligation exists.

Accordingly, Defendant B approved the debt of this case.

Therefore, since the statute of limitations on the debt of this case was interrupted on the date of repayment as above, the defendant B's above assertion is without merit.

In full view of the purport of evidence No. 6 of the judgment as to the claim against Defendant C, Defendant C, the wife of Defendant C, was the Plaintiff or his wife twice on November 22, 2012 and March 23, 2013, on the premise that Defendant C, jointly and severally with Defendant C, bears the obligation to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiff.

arrow