logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2017.11.17 2017가합18029
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 220,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from July 4, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On May 25, 2015, the Defendant agreed that the Plaintiff borrowed KRW 300,000,000 from the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan”) and the Defendant repaid the full amount of the instant loan by June 30, 2017.

B. After that, between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on June 13, 2015, the Defendant again agreed that KRW 50,000,000 out of the instant loan shall be repaid to the Plaintiff until December 31, 2015, KRW 50,000 out of the remainder of KRW 250,000,000 until December 31, 2016, and the remainder of KRW 200,000,000 until December 31, 2016, respectively, shall be repaid until June 30, 2017.

C. From December 21, 2015, the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff only KRW 80,000,000, which is a part of the instant loan, from June 30, 2017, which was the final repayment date for the instant loan.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence 1, Eul evidence 1 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. We examine the judgment on the cause of the claim, and examine the above facts. Since the final repayment of the loan of this case was already made at the time of the conclusion of the argument of this case, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 220,000,000 which was not yet paid out of the loan of this case (=300,000,000 - the amount repaid by the defendant - the amount of KRW 80,000,000) and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from July 4, 2017 to the day of full payment, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant alleged that the defendant introduced D, a real operator of C, a real operator of a real estate development business, to the plaintiff. When the plaintiff was unable to receive the money lent to C due to C's default, the plaintiff made intimidation that he is responsible for the above loan, and the defendant inevitably borrowed the loan of this case to the plaintiff.

arrow