logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2020.07.09 2019가단132510
(소멸시효연장을위한)대여금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff KRW 29,100,000 and Defendant B with respect thereto from August 19, 2008, and Defendant C with respect thereto.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the claim against the defendant B

A. The Plaintiff loaned KRW 30 million to Defendant B on September 12, 2007 as interest monthly and due date on March 11, 2008 (hereinafter “instant loan”). In the event of overdue interest, the Plaintiff agreed to calculate the amount of interest with welfare awareness as principal, and the delivery of KRW 29.1 million after deducting KRW 9 million with prior interest, to Defendant B may be recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings in the respective statements in subparagraphs 1 through 4 and 2 through 11, and the Plaintiff’s payment of KRW 8.7 million from Defendant B to June 8, 2010, or delayed payment of interest or delayed payment from August 18, 2008, does not conflict between the parties concerned.

According to the above facts of recognition, Defendant B is obligated to pay the principal of the loan amounting to KRW 29.1 million and damages for delay from August 19, 2008, as requested by the Plaintiff.

B. Defendant B’s assertion as to the defense, etc. argues that since the Plaintiff’s loans as a business constituted commercial claims, Defendant B’s loan claims were extinguished after the lapse of the five-year extinctive prescription period from June 8, 2010, which was the final repayment date.

However, the Plaintiff agreed on interest exceeding the highest interest rate under the Interest Limitation Act with respect to the instant loan.

The mere fact that a broker has lent money to the defendant through the introduction of the broker is insufficient to recognize that the plaintiff was engaged in the business of lending money, and there is no other evidence to prove that the defendant B has asserted.

Therefore, Defendant B’s defense of extinctive prescription is without merit.

C. Accordingly, Defendant B is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 29.1 million and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum as the Plaintiff seeks from August 19, 2008 to the date of full payment.

2. Determination as to the claim against Defendant C

A. Indication of claim: the plaintiff.

arrow