logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.03.28 2016가단32793
대여금 등
Text

1. The Plaintiff:

A. As to the two defendant corporation, the 43,606,695 won and the 40,440,933 won among them, the defendant corporation shall start on January 19, 2007.

Reasons

Basic Facts

On August 31, 2004, the Plaintiff loaned 200,000,000,000 to the two heads of the Defendant Co., Ltd. on August 31, 2006 at the maturity of payment on August 1, 2006 at the rate of interest rate of 19% per annum. The two heads of the Defendant Co., Ltd provided the Plaintiff with one promissory note, which is the issuer A and the Defendant B, as collateral.

The Plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the Defendants, etc. with Busan District Court Decision 2007Kadan7801, and the above court rendered a judgment on April 24, 2007 that included the following: “The Plaintiff shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 43,606,695, and the amount of KRW 40,440,93, which shall be 19% per annum from January 19, 2007 to the date of full payment, and the amount of KRW 40,440,933, which shall be 40,40,933, which shall be jointly with the Defendant two-young, and the above amount shall be 6% per annum from August 5, 2006 to April 5, 2007, and the amount of KRW 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.” The above judgment became final and conclusive around that time.

[Grounds for recognition] According to the above facts, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, the defendant corporation is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 43,606,695 won, and 40,440,933 won among them at the rate of 19% per annum from January 19, 2007 to the date of full payment. The defendant Gap and Eul jointly with the defendant corporation two Young-gu, are obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40,440,93 won and its amount at the rate of 6% per annum from August 5, 2006 to April 5, 2007, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, and the lawsuit of this case raised for the interruption of extinctive prescription of the claim for which judgment became final and conclusive.

In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is reasonable, and all of them are accepted, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow