(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.28 2016가단120830

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) 의정부지방법원 2017.06.28 2016가단120830

대여금

Text

1. As to KRW 484,399,990 and KRW 180,00,00 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the year from September 1, 2016 to October 14, 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition, etc.;

A. As indicated in the separate sheet, the Plaintiff lent a total of KRW 180 million from September 13, 2005 to November 12, 2009, and the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff a total of KRW 172 million from January 18, 2006 to February 3, 2016.

B. In relation to the interest agreement between the plaintiff and the defendant, the plaintiff alleged that there was a interest agreement between 3% per month (3%) and the defendant did not have an interest agreement, and the facts and circumstances as follows are acknowledged.

① In relation to the above money lending, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant for fraud.

In the above investigation process, the Defendant stated to the effect that “the business did not normally proceed and have failed to pay some principal and interest,” on the premise that there was a interest agreement, the Defendant borrowed a total of KRW 180 million from the Plaintiff and paid a total of KRW 172 million as interest.”

② The Defendant, while making a telephone conversation with the Plaintiff, made a statement to the effect that the money paid to the Plaintiff was the interest.

③ On November 12, 2014, the Defendant drafted each letter (A) stating that “The Plaintiff shall pay KRW 50 million up to November 21, 2014, KRW 50 million up to the same month, KRW 50 million up to December 28, 2014, and KRW 1.55 million up to December 31, 201 of the same year.” However, as alleged by the Defendant, it is difficult to obtain payment of each letter that the unpaid amount should be paid up to KRW 80 million if the amount that the Plaintiff previously repaid is appropriated for the repayment of principal, not for the interest, but for the repayment of principal, KRW 10 million,00,000.

④ In light of the above circumstances, it is evident that there was an interest agreement between the Plaintiff and the Defendant. The Defendant is merely asserting that there was no interest agreement, and there is no assertion or proof as to the interest rate of the Plaintiff’s assertion.

(5) The details stated in the attached Form.

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2016.07.07 2015가단135862

-수원지방법원 2017.11.01 2016가단39480

-서울서부지방법원 2018.07.25 2017가단228093

-서울서부지방법원 2018.06.20 2018가합30306

-서울서부지방법원 2018.12.21 2018고단2177