logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가단51503
대여금
Text

1. The defendant

(a) KRW 75,000,000 shall be paid upon arrival of March 23, 2019;

(b) 44,200,000 Won and its corresponding;

Reasons

1. On July 6, 2015, the Plaintiff had maintained financial transaction, such as remitting and receiving money from the Defendant from around July 6, 2015 (A), (3), etc.). On March 23, 2016, the Defendant prepared and issued a notarized deed of a monetary loan agreement No. 217 of the C Deed No. 2016 (hereinafter referred to as the “notarial deed”).

[A 6-1] The borrowed amount is KRW 75 million, and the due date was agreed on March 23, 2019.

In addition, there was no separate agreement on interest or damages for delay, and the "loss of Benefit of Time" in Article 7 of the Notarial Deed shall be as follows:

After all, on November 9, 2016, a seizure disposition has been made on the Ray Motor Vehicle (D) owned by the defendant on the ground that local tax was delinquent.

[A 6-2] In this case, the plaintiff asserts that the defendant should immediately repay 75 million won since he lost the benefit of the time limit under the notarial deed of this case on the ground of the above disposition on default of taxes.

A special contract for the loss of the benefit of time may be classified into two parts: “a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent, i.e., the occurrence of the obligee’s claim, etc., and a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent, i.e., the occurrence of the obligee’s intent, such as the obligee’s notification or claim after the occurrence of a certain cause.” Whether the special contract for the loss of the benefit of time falls under any one of the two, is a matter of interpretation of the obligee’s intent. However, in light of the fact that the special contract for the loss of the benefit of time is made on behalf of the obligee, it is reasonable to presume it as a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent, unless

Supreme Court Decision 2002Da28340 Delivered on September 4, 2002

arrow