logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.10.11 2017가단27512
대여금반환
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

As the cause of the instant claim, the Plaintiff loaned money to the Defendant from around 2001 to around 2003, and settled the balance of the loan at around April 2004 as KRW 72 million, and the Defendant did not pay KRW 36 million among them. As such, the Plaintiff asserts that he/she sought payment of the said principal balance and damages for delay, as stated in the purport of the claim.

First of all, the plaintiff and the defendant settled the balance of the plaintiff's loan at KRW 72 million around April 2004.

The defendant asserts that the above amount is KRW 63 million and denies the plaintiff's assertion. Since no evidence has been submitted from the plaintiff about the amount of agreement at the time, the above amount of agreement should be recognized as KRW 63 million in the name of the defendant.

Next, we examine the defendant's defense of performance.

After the settlement of the above agreement, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 6 million to the Plaintiff on April 27, 2004, KRW 15 million on May 24, 2004, KRW 15 million on June 18, 2004, KRW 15 million on June 18, 2004, ④ KRW 12 million on October 26, 2007, ⑤ KRW 5 million on March 27, 2018, and KRW 67.2 million on March 27, 2018, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s obligation to the Defendant’s agreed amount was extinguished by the said repayment. Unless there is a dispute between the parties.

In this regard, the Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the interest rate rate of 12.5% per annum was agreed on the above agreed amount, and that the Defendant’s repayment payment remains the unpaid principal if it was appropriated first to the interest rate, but it is difficult to accept it without any evidence supporting the existence of the above interest agreement alleged by the Plaintiff (which is without any evidence to the effect that the repayment was determined).

In the end, the plaintiff's claim of this case is dismissed unfairly.

arrow