logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.08.23 2015가단36657
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally agreed to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000, and 5% per annum from December 8, 2015 to August 23, 2016.

Reasons

1. As to the cause of the instant claim, Defendant B borrowed money of KRW 40 million from around 2008 to the Plaintiff (hereinafter “the instant loan”). The Defendant: (a) led to the confession of the said loan, but revoked it on the third date for pleading; (b) there is no evidence to acknowledge that the confession was contrary to the truth and was due to mistake; (c) Defendant C and D received the instant loan obligations against the Plaintiff on January 7, 2014, in the sense of accepting the Defendant B’s loan obligations against the Plaintiff, the said confession is not effective; (d) the obligor C, joint guarantor C, D, principal principal amount of KRW 40 million; and (e) interest payment period on August 31, 2014, the Plaintiff prepared a loan certificate of KRW 15% per annum after the maturity date, and issued it to the Plaintiff; and (d) on the same day, notary public prepared the loan certificate on the same date, the entire loan certificate and the No. 1014 through No. 29 of the No. 33000, the No. notarial deed as to the Defendant 1.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 40 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from December 8, 2015 to August 23, 2016, which is the date of the final delivery of the instant complaint to the Defendants, and from the next day to the date of full payment, 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. As to Defendant B’s assertion, the above Defendant stated the loan certificate and notarial deed of this case as joint and several sureties in addition to the debtor C. Thus, the Plaintiff, the creditor, is deemed to have exempted the former debtor from the debt of the loan, and thus, the Plaintiff shall be deemed to have exempted the former debtor B from the debt of the loan.

arrow