logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.08.18 2015가단33432
대여금 등
Text

1. Defendant B shall pay 30,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and 20% per annum from January 20, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. A claim against Defendant B borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on June 15, 2012, but remitted KRW 30 million on July 12, 2012 to the Plaintiff’s account, and the fact that Defendant B borrowed KRW 30 million from the Plaintiff on July 12, 2012 again from the Plaintiff on July 12, 2012 does not conflict between the parties, or is recognized by comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the pleadings in the items in the evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 2.

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 20, 2015 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as sought by the Plaintiff.

2. Claim against Defendant C

A. Defendant C’s summary of the Plaintiff’s assertion is jointly and severally guaranteed with Defendant C’s loan obligation of KRW 30 million to the Plaintiff, and Defendant C shall jointly and severally pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 30 million and delay damages therefrom to the Plaintiff.

B. First of all, the part against Defendant C among the evidence Nos. 1 (s) cannot be admitted as evidence because there is no evidence to prove the authenticity of the petition.

According to the evidence No. 2, from the account under Defendant C’s name, the Plaintiff’s account from November 29, 2012 to the Plaintiff’s account, and the same month.

7. 250,00 won, 200,000 won on the 12th of the same month, 80,000 won on January 10, 2013, 28,000 won on the 28th of the same month, and the same year.

3. It is recognized that KRW 500,000,000 and KRW 150,000 have been remitted on the 15th of the same month.

However, it cannot be readily concluded that Defendant C directly remitted each of the above money to the Plaintiff solely on the ground that the remitter is Defendant C. Even if Defendant C wired each of the above money to the Plaintiff, such circumstance alone cannot be deemed as having immediately expressed his/her intent to jointly and severally guarantee the Plaintiff’s obligation to the Plaintiff. A copy of the loan certificate (Evidence A 1) claimed by Defendant C is accompanied by a certificate of personal seal impression issued by Defendant C himself/herself.

arrow