logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.05.01 2014가단164735
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant (Counterclaim Plaintiff) from March 28, 2013 to KRW 18,643,353 and its 6,647,451 among the Plaintiff (Counterclaim Defendant).

Reasons

1. The principal lawsuit and counterclaim shall also be deemed to exist;

A. On January 13, 1995, the Defendant borrowed KRW 17,000,000 from the Plaintiff.

B. Since then, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against the Defendant with Seoul District Court Decision 2003Da46359, and “the Defendant shall pay the Plaintiff 13,259,124 won and 6,870,083 won with 19% interest per annum from June 13, 2003 to the date of full payment.” The payment order was issued, and the above payment order was served on the Defendant on September 25, 2003, and the above payment order was finalized on October 10, 203.

C. Meanwhile, on the other hand, the Defendant leased the Dongjak-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government Ground Building C (hereinafter “instant building”) from December 10, 1994 to KRW 27,00,000 as deposit money for lease, and completed the registration of chonsegwon with the lease deposit amount of KRW 37,00,000 on September 23, 1995 on the instant building.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including paper numbers), Eul evidence No. 3, Eul evidence No. 4, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on April 5, 2013, which was before the extinctive prescription expires for the interruption of a claim based on the payment order. The instant lawsuit has interests in the lawsuit.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay 18,643,353 won, which is a bond based on the above payment order, and 6,647,451 won, among them, with 18% interest per annum from March 28, 2013 to the date of complete payment, as requested by the plaintiff.

3. Judgment on the counterclaim

A. The Defendant asserted that the Defendant obtained a loan from the Plaintiff and paid KRW 28,000,000 to D, a tenant of the instant building, who is the former tenant of the instant building. If D had the supplementary registration of the right to lease on a deposit basis established in the instant building, it would have received a distribution of the deposit for lease on a deposit basis at the auction procedure for the instant building.

However, the building of this case.

arrow