(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.29 2015가단116195

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) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.01.29 2015가단116195

대여금

Text

The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff's successor intervenor KRW 78,209,910 and KRW 76,803,438 among them from September 22, 2015.

Reasons

Facts of recognition

According to the facts stated in Gap evidence 1 through 6 and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff lent 87,70,642 won of the loan principal to the defendant on June 10, 2014 at 60 months of loan period, interest rate of 10.5% per annum, interest rate of 25% per annum, and overdue interest rate of 25% per annum; the defendant delayed to repay the loan principal and interest of the loan and lost profits as of September 21, 2015; the remaining principal and interest of the loan up to that time are 76,803,438 won, unpaid interest rate of 1,391,930 won, delay damages damages of 14,542 won, and the plaintiff's successor acquired the bonds of this case from the plaintiff on December 2, 2015, and the plaintiff's successor's application for intervention by succession as of December 8, 2015, mentioned above.

9. Each fact served on the defendant may be recognized.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff’s succeeding Intervenor interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the overdue interest rate from September 22, 2015 to the date of full payment, with respect to the total amount of the loan principal of KRW 78,209,910 and the principal of the loan principal of KRW 76,803,438, which is the day following the day when the maturity is lost.

The defendant's argument regarding the defendant's assertion is that the above loan was applied for as a branch owner around 2014. Since the defendant did not repay the loan to B Co., Ltd. (the joint guarantor of the loan in this case) or C who acquired the above corporation at the time, the branch owner company (the joint guarantor of the loan in this case) or C did not perform the loan repayment, the plaintiff's assertion to the effect that the payment should be made using the relevant vehicle, but it cannot be asserted against

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-제주지방법원 2015.02.06 2014가단44160

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.06.22 2016가단55769

-춘천지방법원강릉지원 2015.05.27 2015가단20052

-서울남부지방법원 2015.05.08 2014가단237240

-대전지방법원 2020.11.04 2020가단118787