(영문) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.01.11 2016가단23693

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) 창원지방법원 통영지원 2017.01.11 2016가단23693

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and the interest rate of KRW 34.8% per annum from April 23, 2016 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to the judgment on the cause of the claim, the absence of dispute, the entries in Gap evidence No. 1, and the purport of the whole pleadings, the plaintiff is a person who engages in credit business under the trade name of "B" after registering the credit business. It is recognized that on July 23, 2015, the plaintiff set the amount of KRW 150,000,000 to the defendant at the interest rate of 34.8% per annum and the due date of repayment on August 23, 2015.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the remainder of KRW 100,000,000,000, excluding the remainder of KRW 50,000,000, which the Plaintiff was paid from the Defendant, and the damages for delay at the rate of KRW 34.8%, which is the day following the date of final repayment, from April 23, 2016 to the date of full payment, as the Plaintiff seeks.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. First, the Defendant asserted that the instant loan was made by the Defendant under a contract for the construction of a new building with Nonparty C, and that, at the time, the Defendant agreed to pay the said loan when the construction cost was paid by the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff, the payment period for the said loan was not yet arrived.

However, there is no evidence to prove the fact that the plaintiff and the defendant set the due date different from the due date stipulated in the evidence No. 1 (Loan Standard Contract). The defendant's defense is without merit.

B. In addition, at the time, the defendant requested the defendant to complete the construction for the collection of the money lent to the non-party C as the construction cost. Accordingly, the defendant again completed the construction and completed the construction, but it was inevitable to borrow the loan from the plaintiff because C did not pay the construction cost. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is in violation of the principle of trust and good faith.

However, there is no evidence to prove the above facts of the defendant's assertion.

유사 판례

-전주지방법원군산지원 2020.11.05 2020가합65

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.11.09 2016가단66592

-창원지방법원 거창지원 2017.02.07 2016가단1941

-창원지방법원진주지원 2014.05.21 2013가합2248

-인천지방법원 2018.01.26 2016가합52216