logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원평택지원 2019.06.05 2018가단65611
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 40,276,986 and KRW 40,000 among them, from July 26, 2017 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On February 22, 2017, the Plaintiff determined and lent to the Defendant KRW 20 million, KRW 10 million on March 6, 2017, KRW 40 million on April 19, 2017, KRW 40 million on the date of repayment, KRW 30 million on the date of each loan, and KRW 2% on the interest rate.

B. On March 22, 2017, the Defendant paid to the Plaintiff KRW 600,00,000,000 on April 24, 2017, KRW 800,000 on May 25, 2017, KRW 80,000 on June 23, 2017, KRW 50,000 on July 25, 2017, and KRW 3,00,000,000 to the Plaintiff.

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there is no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleading

2. According to the facts found in the determination as to the cause of claim, interest on the Plaintiff’s credit as of July 25, 2017, interest on KRW 3,576,896 [the interest on KRW 2,012,05 (the interest on KRW 2,000,000,000 from February 22, 2017 to July 24, 2017) 927,123 (the interest on KRW 10,000,000,000 from March 6, 2017 to July 24, 2017) is KRW 637,80,08 (the interest on KRW 30,000,000,000,000) paid by the Defendant to the Plaintiff (i.e., the interest on KRW 636,06,00,000) from April 19, 2017 to July 24, 2017).

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest of KRW 40,276,986 as well as KRW 40,000,000 from July 26, 2017 to the date of full payment, calculated by the rate of 2% per month from the above basic date to the date of full payment.

(Plaintiff is seeking interest accrued from May 25, 2017. However, the interest accrued from May 25, 2017 to July 25, 2017 is deemed partially appropriated and extinguished with the Defendant’s payment. As such, the remainder of the claim excluding the interest accrued from July 26, 2017 is not accepted). 3. As such, the Plaintiff’s claim in this case is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder of the claim is dismissed as it is so ordered.

arrow