(영문) 제주지방법원 2019.03.15 2018가단9691

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) 제주지방법원 2019.03.15 2018가단9691

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75,00,000 and the interest rate thereon from July 1, 2018 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 1, 2016, Defendant B borrowed KRW 100,000 from the Plaintiff on June 1, 2016 as the interest rate of KRW 500,000 per month and the due date for payment on December 31, 2016 under the joint and several sureties by Defendant C.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

The Plaintiff received the principal amount of KRW 25 million and interest from the loan of this case until June 30, 2018.

[Ground of recognition] Defendant C: entry in the evidence No. 1 (for lack of dispute as to the stamp image part of Defendant C, the authenticity of the entire document shall be presumed to have been achieved) and the purport of the whole pleadings against Defendant C without dispute

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the interest calculated at the rate of 25% per annum, which is the highest interest rate stipulated in the Interest Limitation Act at the time of borrowing, within the scope of the agreement from July 1, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the following day after the last payment of interest.

B. The Defendants asserted that, on May 27, 2018, the Plaintiff and Defendant B prepared a new loan certificate to pay interest of 25% per annum on the remaining principal amount of KRW 75 million, and that, on the loan certificate, Defendant C did not have been written as joint and several sureties, the validity of the previous loan certificate (certificate No. 1) is extinguished and Defendant C’s joint and several liability obligation is exempted. However, there is no evidence that the new loan certificate was written. However, on the sole basis of the fact that the previous loan certificate (certificate No. 1) had been written, it is insufficient to acknowledge that the Plaintiff exempted Defendant C from the joint and several liability obligation, and there is no evidence to acknowledge otherwise. Therefore, the Defendants’ assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition by the assent of all.

참조조문

-이자제한법

유사 판례

-전주지방법원정읍지원 2016.06.07 2014가단7184

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.04.15 2014가합594937

-서울남부지방법원 2019.06.21 2018가단257471

-수원지방법원여주지원 2019.07.10 2018가단5739

-수원지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나63330