logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원서산지원 2019.04.24 2018가단4934
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 40,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from December 13, 2018 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking into account the written evidence No. 1 and the overall purport of the pleadings as to the cause of the claim, as a whole, D loaned KRW 40 million to Defendant B on May 22, 2017, and Defendant B agreed to pay the Plaintiff, the heir of D on November 14, 2017, with the amount of KRW 40 million, up to August 30, 2018, upon the death of August 1, 2017. Upon the agreement, Defendant B agreed to pay the said borrowed amount of KRW 40 million to the Plaintiff, the heir of D on November 14, 2017. Upon the agreement, the period of the Defendants’ relocation pursuant to the redevelopment of E zone in which the Defendants were residing, and if the period of relocation was determined earlier than August 30, 2018, it can be recognized that Defendant C agreed to the date of repayment as the period of resettlement, and Defendant C’s wife’s joint and several surety on the said debt prohibited.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff the above borrowed amount of KRW 40 million and damages for delay at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from December 13, 2018 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case.

2. As to the defendants' assertion, the defendants asserted that the period of payment of the above loan was when the defendants received relocation expenses from the redevelopment association in the E-area, but it was not yet paid, and that the period of payment of the above loan was not yet due.

There is no evidence to acknowledge that the repayment period of the above loan is the time of the redevelopment association's relocation expenses, and the defendants' above assertion is without merit.

3. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is justified and acceptable.

arrow