logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.04.06 2017가단59928
대여금
Text

1. Defendant B shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 144,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 25, 2017 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. On December 31, 2015, the annual loan (unit (unit) No. 1 on the date of loan No. 30,000,000 on December 31, 2015, 2016, 50,000,000 on December 31, 2016, and 30,000 on March 30, 2016, 30,000 on April 17, 2016, 17, 200,000 on May 4, 2016, 200,000 KRW 14,00,000,000 on around 14, 200,000 from December 31, 2015 to August 31, 2016, the Plaintiff and the Defendant did not have an obligation to pay damages for delay to the Plaintiff, barring any special circumstance.

B. Defendant B, among the grounds that Defendant B paid KRW 64,00,000 to the Plaintiff, there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

(The above defendant did not specify the time and details of the repayment).

Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from July 25, 2017 to the day of full payment after the delivery of the complaint of this case, including the Plaintiff’s intent to seek reimbursement for KRW 144,00,000,00, and to the day of full payment.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Although the real estate in the attached list of the reasons for the claim is listed as the owner on the register, it is the name of the defendant B entrusted to the defendant C.

Therefore, the Plaintiff, a creditor of Defendant B, terminated the title trust agreement between the Defendants on behalf of the said Defendant, who is insolvent through the instant complaint.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to implement the registration procedure for ownership transfer on the ground of termination of title trust.

B. The real estate acquired by one side of the judgment couple under his/her name during marriage is presumed to be his/her unique property (see Supreme Court Decision 94Da42778, Feb. 3, 1995). The Defendants’ husband and wife are not in dispute, and Defendant C purchased the real estate listed in the separate sheet on April 23, 2014, considering the overall purport of pleading in the statement of evidence No. 3.

arrow