logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2017.01.19 2015가단33660
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 145,00,000 for the Plaintiff and KRW 20% per annum from August 26, 2015 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff respectively lent KRW 30 million to the Defendant, with interest rate of November 28, 2005, KRW 15% per annum on June 27, 2007, and KRW 30 million due date determined as June 27, 2007, and KRW 20 million per annum on October 31, 2012, and due date as December 12, 2013.

B. The Defendant prepared a certificate of loan with the amount of KRW 15% interest on September 12, 2006, the due date of repayment of KRW 30 million on December 10, 2007, ② interest on September 12, 2008, the due date of repayment of KRW 15% on September 12, 2009, the due date of repayment of KRW 15 million on September 12, 2008, ③ interest on October 12, 201, the due date of repayment of KRW 10% on December 12, 201, the certificate of loan with KRW 30 million on April 12, 201, and each certificate of loan with interest on KRW 10% on April 12, 201, the due date of repayment of payment of KRW 30 million on May 12, 2012.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence No. 1 to 6

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The plaintiff's assertion 1) The plaintiff merely lent 30 million won to the defendant on November 28, 2005 and 50 million won on October 31, 2012, and 20 million won on September 12, 2006; 15 million won on September 12, 2008; 30 million won on December 3, 2010; 201.3 million won on April 12, 201; 30 million won on loan; 1.5 million won on loan; 2.5 million won on loan; 3 million won on loan to the defendant on March 24, 201; 1.5 million won on loan; and 2.5 million won on loan from the defendant on September 24, 2015; 1.5 million won on loan; and 2.5 million won on loan from the defendant on March 24, 2015.

Preliminaryly, even if it is recognized that the Defendant borrowed the above KRW 15 billion as the Plaintiff’s assertion, the Defendant satisfied all of them.

B. Whether the 1.5 billion won in dispute over the determination has been leased or not shall be the authenticity of the disposal document.

arrow