(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나323102

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대구지방법원 2020.05.20 2019나323102

대여금

Text

1. Revocation of the first instance judgment.

2. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 3,500,000 as well as its full payment from April 18, 2019.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the plaintiff loaned KRW 5 million to the defendant on December 11, 2014 (a prior interest rate of KRW 500,000 to pay KRW 500,000 per month for 11 months after deducting KRW 500,000), and the plaintiff lent KRW 3 million to the defendant on March 26, 2015 (a prior interest rate of KRW 1,550,000 after deducting KRW 1,50,000), and the defendant, on December 22, 2016, prepared a loan certificate to the plaintiff that the balance of each of the above loans will be KRW 3.5 million from January 2017 to KRW 30,000 per month.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 3.5 million won in total of the balance of each of the above loans and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from April 18, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served on the defendant.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that the defendant paid 5 million won of the first loan, including the prior interest rate, on 11 occasions, and that the second loan was fully repaid 3 million won.

The statements in evidence Nos. 1, 2, and 3 are insufficient to recognize that the Defendant repaid all of the above loans, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

(B) The evidence Nos. 2 and 3 is difficult to recognize that each of the above loans was remitted to the accounts of C or any third party, other than the Plaintiff’s account, with the purport of remitting the funds to the Plaintiff’s loan. Rather, the Defendant, on June 22, 2016, claiming that all of the above loans were repaid, prepared and proposed the loan certificate before the Plaintiff on December 22, 2016. Accordingly, the Defendant appears to have failed to repay all of the Plaintiff’s loan at that time.

Therefore, the defendant's letter of repayment is not accepted.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-인천지방법원 부천지원 2018.09.28 2017가단15401

-대전지방법원 2017.02.10 2016나6680

-울산지방법원 2018.06.07 2017가합1031

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.10.30 2019나16887 (1)

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2017.06.08 2016가단80645