logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 제주지방법원 2020.06.03 2019나13162
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the plaintiff falling under the part ordering additional payment is revoked.

Reasons

1. In full view of the facts of recognition as Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the entire pleadings as a result of this court's examination of the plaintiff himself, the plaintiff lent KRW 60,000,000 to defendant B around 207, the defendant B around May 15, 2008, KRW 15,000,000 until August 15, 2008, and ② the same year

9. The fact that up to 15,000,000 won was promised to pay 15,000,000 won by October 15, 199, and 15,000 won by October 15, 198, and 15,000 won by November 15, 199, and the fact that Defendant C guaranteed Defendant B’s obligation is recognized.

2. Determination

A. According to the facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 60,000,000 won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from November 16, 2008 to June 3, 2020, the date of which the Defendants rendered a substantial judgment to dispute, and 12% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The Defendants’ assertion against the statute of limitations and the Plaintiff’s second defense against the defense that the statute of limitations expired after the lapse of ten years from the date of each due date. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the statute of limitations has expired on December 23, 2008 by approving the Defendant B’s debt.

(1) On November 14, 2018, the fact that the lawsuit in this case was brought shall be significant in this court.

However, according to the above evidence, it is recognized that Defendant B approved the debt on December 23, 2008, and its effect also extends to Defendant C, a guarantor.

Since the Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on November 14, 2018 before the lapse of ten years from December 24, 2008, which was the day following the day when Defendant B approved the debt, the defense of the Defendants’ extinctive prescription cannot be accepted.

3. Conclusion, the first instance judgment is unfair, and it is so decided as per Disposition by accepting part of the Plaintiff’s appeal.

arrow