(영문) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.03.22 2017가단915

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) 대전지방법원 천안지원 2017.03.22 2017가단915

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff asserts that the Plaintiff has a claim against the Defendant based on the Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Ga20728 Decided December 21, 2016 against the Daejeon District Court Decision 2004Gadan20728. If the amount of dividends and the Defendant’s repayment amount are deducted, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of the principal and interest of the loan as of December 20, 2016 and the principal amount of KRW 28,743,932 from December 21, 2016 to the date of full payment.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts that the defendant's obligation against the plaintiff was discharged since the Daejeon District Court 2014Haak1749, 2014Haak1750 was declared bankrupt and the decision of immunity was made.

2. According to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1-1, 2, 2, 2, and 3 as of December 2016 and the whole pleadings, the Plaintiff’s loaning KRW 50,00,00 to the Defendant on June 13, 2003 and the judgment rendered in favor of the Defendant was affirmed. On February 1, 2007, the Plaintiff received KRW 21,049,637 during the compulsory auction procedure for real estate B by the Seoul Southern District Court, Seoul Southern District Court, and collected some principal and interest from the Defendant. The remainder of the Plaintiff’s loan principal and interest on the Defendant as of December 20, 2016 is KRW 70,787,248 (the principal and interest thereon are KRW 28,743,932). However, if the Defendant was declared bankrupt as of the Daejeon District Court, the Plaintiff’s loaning claim is included in the list of the parties to the bankruptcy claim and the exemption decision was not established.

Therefore, since the defendant's obligation to the plaintiff was exempted, the plaintiff cannot seek payment of the principal and interest of the loan against the defendant.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단230694

-수원지방법원안양지원 2020.11.25 2020가단108163

-대전지방법원서산지원 2017.07.26 2017가단867

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.11 2015가단127498

-서울서부지방법원 2016.05.11 2015가단40312