logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.04.28 2016가단59187
대여금
Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, and Defendant C, jointly and severally with Defendant B, share KRW 16,600,000 and each of the said amounts.

Reasons

1. Basic facts: (a) Defendant B borrowed KRW 30,00,000 from the Plaintiff on December 19, 201; (b) Defendant C received KRW 17,60,000 from the Plaintiff on December 22, 2011, deducting KRW 20,000 from the advance interest of KRW 20,000; and (c) at that time, Defendant B guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to repay the borrowed amount; (d) the Plaintiff issued a demand to the Defendants to return the borrowed amount on several occasions; and (e) the Plaintiff received KRW 1,00,00,000 from the Defendant C on June 10, 2015; or (e) there is no dispute between the parties to the payment of KRW 1,00,00,000 from the borrowed amount; or (e) there is no evidence to prove it in accordance with the purport of the entire pleadings and arguments as stated in subparagraph 1-1, 2-2.

2. According to the facts of the above recognition, Defendant B as the principal obligor and the guarantor, and Defendant C as the principal obligor have the duty to return each of the above loans to the Plaintiff as the principal obligor.

Since the plaintiff notified the return of each of the above loans, the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case, which is after a considerable period of time, arrives at all of the above loans.

As such, Defendant B is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 46,600,00 (main debt of KRW 16,600,000), Defendant C is jointly and severally with Defendant B, whichever is KRW 16,60,000 (=17,600,000 - 1,000,000) and each of the above amounts, as the Plaintiff seeks, to pay damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 27, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the last delivery of the copy of the complaint of this case.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is with merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow