logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2016.12.20 2016가단30101
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall calculate the amount of KRW 100 million to the plaintiff at the rate of 25% per annum from January 19, 2007 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

No dispute between the parties, or comprehensively taking account of the purport of Gap evidence No. 1's statement and the whole argument, the plaintiff loaned 132,00,000 won with the due date set on April 18, 2006 and 48% per annum, respectively, to C, and the defendant can recognize the fact that the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above loan obligation to C. The plaintiff was paid the principal amount of the above loan amounting to 32,00,000,000 won and damages for delay incurred until January 18, 207 from June 2006. Thus, the defendant as a joint and several surety, is liable to pay the plaintiff the above principal amounting to 10,000 won (=132,00,000 won - 32,00,000,000,000 won with interest rate of 25% interest rate limit per annum from January 19, 2007.

In regard to this, the Defendant asserts that the instant loan claim has expired, so it is obvious that the Plaintiff filed an application for payment order in lieu of the complaint with the court on April 18, 2016, which was the date of the expiration of the prescription period. Thus, the above loan claim cannot be deemed to have expired. Furthermore, the interruption of prescription against the principal debtor cannot be deemed to have expired. Furthermore, since the Defendant asserted that the Defendant repaid part of the above loan to the Plaintiff around June 2006 by the principal debtor, it constitutes the recognition of the debt, and thus, the statute of limitations has been interrupted at that time, and the period of prescription has not run again. However, as long as the Plaintiff submitted the application for payment order as seen above on April 18, 2016, for which the ten years have not passed thereafter, the Defendant’s claim for the completion of the prescription period has no merit.

Therefore, the plaintiff's claim shall be accepted for the reasons and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow