(영문) 대구지방법원 2015.10.29 2015나7198 | 리걸엔진

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) 대구지방법원 2015.10.29 2015나7198

대여금

Text

1.The judgment of the first instance shall be modified as follows:

2. The plaintiff succeeding intervenor's claim is dismissed.

3...

Reasons

1. The fact that the defendant borrowed 2.7 million won from the plaintiff on December 2, 1997 to determine the cause of the claim, and the plaintiff 2005

5. 13. The balance of the above loan 2,695,378 won was transferred to the Plaintiff’s Intervenor. At that time, the fact that the above transfer was notified to the Defendant is either a dispute between the parties or if the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the evidence Nos. 1 and 4. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above transfer amount of KRW 2,695,378 and the delay damages, barring any special circumstance.

2. The defendant's defense, etc. asserted that the extinctive prescription period for the above loans has expired before the filing of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, it is clear that the above loans were filed on April 26, 1997, and that the lawsuit in this case was filed on April 26, 2004. Accordingly, the above loans, a commercial bond, are not asserted and proved by the plaintiff's successor on December 2, 1997, which is the date of the establishment of the lawsuit in this case. Thus, the date of establishment of the claim shall be regarded as the date of prescription.

Since the period of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription expired, the defendant's above defense is justified, since the period of the five-year commercial extinctive prescription expired before the filing of the lawsuit in this case.

As to this, the Plaintiff asserted that the period of prescription has been suspended by the Defendant’s repayment of KRW 4,622 out of the above loans on September 15, 2001 and approving the Defendant’s debt, and thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion that the period of prescription has been interrupted is indicated as evidence corresponding thereto. However, in light of the fact that the above KRW 4,622 is difficult to deem that the above KRW 4,622 was actually paid, and that there is no evidence as to the Defendant’s repayment by any method, the Plaintiff’s assertion against the above cannot be accepted, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. As a result, the claim of the plaintiff succeeding intervenor is dismissed as it is without merit, and it is made at the trial.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.03.22 2016가단5249048

-대법원 2018. 02. 28. 선고 2017두70571 판결

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.08 2016나73469

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.01.10 2018나46270

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.06 2018나2249