logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.11.23 2017가단2370
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 75,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from February 9, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1 and the witness C's testimony as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff received a request from the defendant for a request from the defendant to borrow and request the amount of money, which is KRW 20 million on February 15, 2016, and the same year.

3. 9.25 million won, and the same year.

4. 1.1.1 million won, per year;

8. Recognizing the fact that a total of KRW 75 million has been remitted to 24.2 million.2 million.

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 75 million and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from February 9, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of the complaint of this case.

2. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant asserted that, in addition to the Defendant’s repayment to the Plaintiff by means of remitting KRW 10 million on February 12, 2016, and KRW 5 million on December 9, 2016, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff all of the above KRW 75 million by means of remitting to C and D. However, the above assertion is without merit for the following reasons.

According to Eul evidence 2-2, although the defendant transferred KRW 11 million to the plaintiff on February 12, 2016, the above date of remittance cannot be deemed to be the repayment of the above remittance, since it is deemed that the above date of remittance was prior to the date of borrowing stipulated in paragraph 1 above.

B. According to the statement No. 2-5 of the evidence No. 2-5, the Defendant remitted KRW 5 million on December 9, 2016, and the remittance details only can be recognized as having been stated as “S-Korea Bank” and “A”, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge that the Defendant remitted the money to the Plaintiff’s bank account.

C. It is not sufficient to recognize that the statement in the evidence Nos. 1 to 4 alone is that the defendant has repaid to the plaintiff the money that the defendant remitted to C and D, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and acceptable.

arrow