(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.10.15 2015가단7866

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) 대구지방법원서부지원 2015.10.15 2015가단7866

대여금

Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. Defendant B’s KRW 90,000,000 and KRW 50,00,000 among them shall be as follows: (a) from September 13, 2015, KRW 40,000,000.

Reasons

1. Indication of claim;

A. On November 27, 2007, the Plaintiff set the due date of repayment of KRW 40 million as of January 27, 2008, and lent to Defendant B on December 21, 2007, with the due date of repayment of KRW 40 million as of December 21, 2007.

B. On March 31, 2005, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 50 million to Defendant C as of June 30, 2005.

C. Therefore, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 90 million and the amount of the loan from January 28, 2008 following the last due date of the loan, Defendant C is obligated to pay the amount of KRW 50 million and the amount of delay damages calculated at each rate of 20% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from July 1, 2005 to the last delivery date of each complaint of this case from July 1, 2005 to the next day of the repayment, and from the next day to the day of the full payment.

2. Judgment by service (Article 208 (3) 3 of the Civil Procedure Act).

3. On November 27, 2007, the Plaintiff asserts that the repayment period was set on January 27, 2008 while lending KRW 50 million to Defendant B on November 27, 2007, and that the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from the day following the above payment period, but there is no evidence to acknowledge the above payment period.

Therefore, pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act, Defendant B is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated by the ratio of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from September 13, 2015 to October 15, 2015, which is the date when the judgment was rendered, to the extent that the Defendant’s disputes over the existence or scope of the obligation from September 13, 2015 when a considerable period for the repayment of the obligation has elapsed since the delivery of the duplicate of the complaint in this case, and 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of full payment. Thus, there is no reason for the part

참조조문

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2016.05.10 2015가단14005

-창원지방법원마산지원 2017.06.15 2017가단100010

-창원지방법원마산지원 2015.11.27 2015가단6008

-춘천지방법원 2014.12.19 2014나1526

-수원지방법원 2015.04.23 2014가합12372