logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.02 2016가단13176
양수금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

(a) The following facts of recognition may be found either in dispute between the Parties or in each entry in Gap evidence 10 and 11 (including each number), together with the purport of the entire pleadings:

(1) On February 198, 1998, Defendant A borrowed the Defendant A’s first and second loans from the Jeju Bank (hereinafter “Nonindicted Bank”) (hereinafter “the first loans”) and the second loans of KRW 50 million on March 28, 1998 (hereinafter “the second loans”), including the first loans, after one year from the due date of the loans. Defendant A extended the due date of the instant loans by one year on March 31, 1999, and Defendant B guaranteed the Defendant A’s first and second loans within the limit of KRW 65 million, total of KRW 130 million.

D. The repayment period of the instant loan obligation is extended once every one year on February 29, 200 (the first loan) and June 23, 2000 (the second loan). After the extension, the repayment period of the first loan obligation is February 19, 2001, and the second loan obligation is March 28, 2001.

On January 5, 2005, the non-party bank transferred the claim for the loan of this case to the non-party global MC Co., Ltd., and the non-party global MC Co., Ltd. again transferred the above claim to the plaintiff on March 5, 2005.

B. According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff, the assignee of the instant loan claim, the principal amount of the instant loan amounting to KRW 90 million, and delay damages therefrom, unless there are other special circumstances.

2. The Defendants’ defenses asserted that the instant loans claim expired by prescription.

The first loan obligation is due on February 19, 2001, and the second loan obligation is due on March 28, 2001, and it is evident that the Plaintiff’s lawsuit of this case was filed on January 29, 201 after five years from the lawsuit of this case.

arrow