logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2014.05.22 2014가단1872
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 95,00,000 as well as KRW 69,00,000 among them, from December 3, 2013 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On August 19, 2008, the Plaintiff withdrawn KRW 69,000,000 from the Defendant’s account of community credit cooperatives, and around that time, determined and lent the said money to the Defendant at KRW 1,00,000 per year after the maturity of one year and after the interest.

(hereinafter “instant loan”).

B. After that, the Plaintiff had extended the repayment period of the instant loan at the Defendant’s request, and the Defendant repaid KRW 33,500,000 from October 2008 to July 201.

[Grounds for recognition] The items of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 69,00,000 as well as the amount of KRW 26,000,000,000, which is the date of delivery of a copy of the application for the instant payment order from September 19, 201 to December 2, 2013, as the Plaintiff seeks, and as the Plaintiff seeks, the amount of KRW 95,00,000 (= KRW 69,00,000,000) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of KRW 20% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from September 19, 201 to December 2, 2013.

B. The Defendant’s assertion (i) asserts that the Defendant did not borrow KRW 69,00,000,000 received from the Plaintiff, but was the money invested in the Defendant’s business capital, and that the Plaintiff promised to pay KRW 1,00,000 to the Defendant for each month when the benefit arises, but the benefit did not accrue from August 201.

The defendant's assertion is not acceptable, since there is no evidence to prove that she was an investment amount of KRW 69,00,000.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow