(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가단242558

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) 부산지방법원 2015.04.30 2014가단242558

양수금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 105,425,584 and KRW 54,902,505 among them, 17% per annum from August 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On June 18, 2007, the New Bank Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “New Bank”) leased KRW 67.8 million to the Defendant on June 18, 2007, the interest rate and overdue interest rate shall apply, and the redemption date shall be June 18, 2010 (hereinafter “the instant loan”). Around that time, in order to secure the instant loan claim, the collateral security amount of KRW 881.4 million was established with respect to the instant loan No. 62 (hereinafter “instant commercial building”).

B. On December 24, 2009, the new bank transferred the instant loan claims to the Plaintiff, and notified the Defendant of the assignment of claims on January 15, 2010.

C. The Defendant lost the benefit of time due to the Defendant’s failure to repay the principal and interest of the instant loan, and the Plaintiff filed an application for voluntary auction of real estate with respect to the instant commercial building on January 12, 201, received dividends of KRW 897,495 on January 26, 201, and appropriated part of the principal out of the instant loan.

As of July 31, 2014, the principal and interest of the instant loan is KRW 105,425,584 in total (the principal balance of KRW 54,902,505, interest and overdue interest KRW 50,523,079). The overdue interest rate after July 31, 2014 is 17% per annum.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 7, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the facts acknowledged as above, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 105,425,584 and delay damages calculated at the rate of 17% per annum from August 1, 2014 to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's defense of forgery is alleged to be without a direct signature and seal on a loan transaction agreement (No. 1) and a mortgage contract document (No. 5) and a third party, but it can be recognized that the defendant's signature and seal on the above loan transaction agreement and the mortgage contract document are identical to the defendant's written statement and form stated in the written objection on the payment order of this case.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.03.17 2014나47473

-대구지방법원포항지원 2015.11.03 2014가단303219

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.07.14 2016나14729

-창원지방법원마산지원 2016.11.24 2016가단9349

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.21 2019가단5219079