logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.07.26 2017나314531
대여금
Text

1. Of the judgment of the court of first instance, the part against the defendant exceeding the following amount ordered to be paid shall be revoked.

Reasons

1. The reasoning of the judgment of this court citing the judgment of the court of first instance is as follows, except for adding the following judgments, and therefore, it is consistent with the reasoning of the judgment of the court of first instance. Thus, it is acceptable in accordance with the main sentence of Article 42

(1) The Defendant’s ground for appeal is not significantly different from the allegations in the first instance court. The Defendant’s ground for appeal is not significantly different from the allegations in the evidence duly examined by the first instance court, and the fact-finding and judgment in the first instance court are deemed legitimate even if the Defendant submitted the evidence of the first instance court to this court up to the evidence Nos. 13 through 19. 2. The Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from June 2, 2013 to Oct. 31, 2017, which is the date following the due date for payment of the above loan certificate, to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

Article 3(2) of the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings provides that "if it is deemed reasonable for an obligor to dispute the existence or scope of the obligation," refers to the time when there is a reasonable ground for the obligor's argument as to the existence or scope of the obligation. Thus, the issue of whether the dispute is unreasonable is related to the fact-finding and evaluation of the court concerning the case in question. However, in a lawsuit seeking monetary payment, if the first instance court accepted only part of the Plaintiff's claim and dismissed the remainder of the claim, unless there are special circumstances, it is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence or scope of the obligation until the judgment of the first instance is rendered, and as to the damages for delay on the cited amount, unless there are special circumstances.

arrow