logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2020.11.18 2020가단4938
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's part of the claim for reimbursement against the defendant B is dismissed.

2. The plaintiff's remainder against the defendant B.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff remitted total of KRW 60,000,000 to Defendant B’s account on May 20, 2006, September 29, 2006, and June 4, 2007, respectively.

As from June 2006, Defendant B transferred to the Plaintiff KRW 200,000 per month, KRW 400,000 per month from September 2006, and KRW 600,00 per month from August 23, 2007 to January 23, 2009.

B. From November 12, 2009 to July 14, 2010, the Plaintiff, as a guarantor of Defendant B, subrogated to the total amount of KRW 26,50,264,00,000.

C. Around 2014, Defendant B filed an application for bankruptcy immunity and was granted immunity from the court on December 24, 2015 (or the District Court Decision 2014Da2862, hereinafter “instant immunity”), and the instant immunity became final and conclusive on January 12, 2016.

[Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 2, 4 (including branch numbers, hereinafter the same shall apply), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. According to the fact that the loan and the obligation for indemnity are recognized, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total of KRW 60,000,000 for the loan and KRW 26,50,264 for indemnity and KRW 86,50,264 for the loan and the obligation for delay.

B. Defendant B’s assertion 1 as to Defendant B’s assertion that the loan was not a loan. Defendant B asserted that KRW 60,000,000,000, which the Plaintiff remitted to the Defendant was a business transaction rather than a loan, but Defendant B’s assertion cannot be recognized in light of the fact that the Defendant forwards the amount deemed as interest to the Plaintiff in a certain manner. 2) Defendant B’s assertion that the statute of limitations defense as to the loan obligation has expired.

Defendant B paid interest on the loan to the Plaintiff by January 23, 2009. Therefore, it should be deemed that Defendant B’s loan obligation to Defendant B was run from January 23, 2009, when paying the above interest.

However, this case.

arrow