logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.11.28 2019나12946 (1)
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. The defendant asserts to the effect that the payment order applied to the Seoul Central District Court by the plaintiff violated Article 463 of the Civil Procedure Act, which prescribes the exclusive jurisdiction, and thus, it should be dismissed.

Article 463 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a demand procedure shall be subject to the exclusive jurisdiction of the district court in the location of the debtor's general forum or of the competent court under Articles 7 through 9, 12 or 18," and Article 8 of the Civil Procedure Act provides that "a lawsuit concerning a right to property may be brought to the court in the place of residence or the place of obligation performance, in case of a lawsuit concerning a right to property," and Article 467 (2) of the Civil Act provides that "a performance of any obligation other than a specific delivery shall be made in

Since the plaintiff's application for payment order is seeking monetary payment, the performance of the obligation is the current address of the plaintiff, and Gangnam-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government is within the jurisdiction of the Seoul Central District Court.

Therefore, the plaintiff applied for a payment order to a court having a legitimate jurisdiction over the demand procedure, and the defendant's argument cannot be accepted.

2. Judgment on the merits

A. On June 18, 2015, the Plaintiff and the Defendant indicated that the Defendant borrowed KRW 10,000,000 from the Plaintiff at an annual interest rate of 34.894% per annum and the due date of payment on June 18, 2020 between the Plaintiff and the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

(1) The Plaintiff entered into a loan agreement of 10,000,000 won on the same day (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”).

(2) The Defendant paid interest under the instant loan agreement by February 22, 2017, but later, lost the benefit of time due to the delay.

3) Obligations under the instant loan agreement are the principal amounting to KRW 9,90,466 as of May 16, 2017, and interest and delay damages KRW 792,722 as of KRW 792. [The facts that there is no dispute over the grounds for recognition, and the entries in the evidence Nos. 1, 3, 8, and 13, and the purport of the entire pleadings.

B. Determination 1.

arrow