logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원김천지원 2019.11.21 2018가단5238
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 18,33,33 of the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from October 20, 2018 to November 21, 2019, and the following.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion C lent KRW 55,00,000 to the Defendant before October 17, 2008. Since C died on November 10, 2010 and C succeeded to C, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the above loan amounting to KRW 55,00,000,000 and the delay damages.

2. Determination as to the cause of action

A. Before October 17, 2008, C determined a sum of KRW 55,00,000 to the Defendant as interest rate of KRW 3% per month (hereinafter “instant loan”). In full view of the entries and arguments in subparagraph 2, C died on November 10, 2010 and the overall purport of the pleadings, it can be recognized that D, E, and F, the spouse and their children jointly succeeded to the said C.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff, among co-inheritors, 18,33,33 won (=5,000,000 won x 1/3, and less than won) which is the share of inheritance of the plaintiff among the principal of the loan of this case among the co-inheritors of this case and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 12% per annum as stipulated by the Civil Act from October 20, 2018 to November 21, 2019, which is reasonable to dispute over the existence and scope of the defendant's obligation to pay from October 20, 2018, which is the day following the date of service of the original copy of the payment order of this case to the day of full payment.

B. As to whether the Plaintiff inherited a claim equivalent to C’s remaining 36,66,67 won (=5,000,000 - 18,33,333) out of the instant loan claims, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, and the Plaintiff’s assertion seeking payment of a loan equivalent to the above 36,66,67 won is without merit.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant defense to the effect that around 2008, C or the plaintiff exempted or reduced the principal and interest of the loans of this case. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge this, the defendant's defense is without merit.

B. The defendant on October 2008

arrow