(영문) 부산지방법원동부지원 2020.10.21 2019가단219979

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) 부산지방법원동부지원 2020.10.21 2019가단219979

대여금

Text

The defendant's 21,428,572 won, the plaintiff (appointed party) and the appointed party D respectively are 14,285,714 won and each of the said money.

Reasons

1. The Defendant borrowed KRW 50,000,00 from Nonparty E on August 2, 2006, and the fact that Nonparty C, the spouse of Nonparty C, the Plaintiff (Appointed Party), the Appointed Party D succeeded to the network’s property on August 2, 2010 is either a dispute between the parties or may be acknowledged by the statements in the evidence in subparagraphs A through 4.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the borrowed amount to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party in proportion to his/her share of inheritance. Thus, the Defendant is obligated to pay 21,428,572 won (=50,000,000 x 3/7) x 14,285,714 won (=50,000 x 2/7), respectively, to the Plaintiff (Appointed Party) and the appointed party D as to each of the above amounts (=50,00,000 x 2/7) and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from September 3, 2019 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the complaint.

2. Judgment on the defense

A. First, the defendant defense that he repaid the net E the amount of KRW 30,000,000 out of the loan of this case, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. The defendant set up the following defenses that the loan claim of this case expired by the statute of limitations:

The facts raised on August 26, 2019, which was 10 years after the date on which the instant lawsuit was lent money, are apparent in the records.

However, in addition to the statement in Gap evidence No. 5, if the defendant paid interest on the loan of this case to the deceased until August 2010, the completion of the prescription period, and the payment of interest is effective as approval for the debt of the loan and shall be interrupted at the time of the payment. Thus, as long as the lawsuit of this case was instituted before the lapse of 10 years from the date of the final payment of interest, the extinctive prescription of the loan of this case was not completed.

Therefore, the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.

3. Conclusion.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대구지방법원포항지원 2020.03.05 2019가단5534

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.08.25 2016가단7793

-수원지방법원 성남지원 2018.05.16 2017가단21021

-창원지방법원진주지원 2020.03.04 2019가단7491