(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.30 2018나73890

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.08.30 2018나73890

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 25, 2013, the Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) with the Defendant with respect to the purchase price of re-employed XF vehicles (hereinafter “instant vehicles”) purchased by the Defendant, and extended the said money to the Defendant around that time:

The overdue interest rate for the loan of the date of execution shall be 25% per three months per annum on March 25, 2013.

B. After the Defendant’s delinquency in paying the principal and interest under the instant loan agreement, the Plaintiff received the instant vehicle from the Defendant after cancelling the said loan agreement with the Defendant, and disposed of the said vehicle, and appropriated the disposal price for the repayment of the remaining principal and interest under the instant loan agreement.

C. Accordingly, the remaining principal and interest under the instant loan agreement as of December 4, 2017 are KRW 26,142,790 in total (i.e., principal interest of KRW 12,497,863 in overdue interest of KRW 13,64,927).

【Ground of recognition】 The fact that there has been no dispute, entry of Gap Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff damages for delay for KRW 26,142,789 of the remaining principal and interest pursuant to the loan agreement of this case and the principal amount of KRW 12,497,863 of the principal, unless there are special circumstances.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant alleged to the effect that the Plaintiff disposed of the instant vehicle at an underpaid price without any particular notice to the Defendant during the public sale procedure and then appropriated only the proceeds from the sale to repay the principal and interest pursuant to the loan agreement of this case. However, according to the evidence No. 1, it is recognized that the Defendant was notified of the fact that the public sale procedure regarding the instant vehicle is in progress, and there is no evidence to acknowledge the fact as alleged by the Defendant, and the Defendant’

C. According to the theory of lawsuit, the defendant remains to the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.10 2019나39439

-청주지방법원제천지원 2019.08.14 2019가단1141

-수원지방법원안산지원 2017.04.07 2016가단53572

-수원지방법원 2018.05.29 2017나63245

-수원지방법원 2019.05.22 2018가합29309