logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원정읍지원 2015.11.03 2014가단7177
대여금
Text

1. Defendant C shall pay 45,00,000 won to the Plaintiff and 24% per annum from September 10, 2003 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, upon having been jointly and severally liable by the Defendants, lent the amount of KRW 25 million on August 31, 2001, KRW 20 million on July 5, 2002, KRW 20 million on September 30, 2002, KRW 20 million on September 30, 2002 without setting the respective interest rate, KRW 24% per annum, and period of repayment.

(hereinafter referred to as “each of the loans of this case”). 【The ground for recognition” is the absence of dispute, the evidence No. 1-3, and the purport of the whole pleadings.

2. On the other hand, on August 30, 201, the Plaintiff was paid interest of KRW 25 million with respect to the principal of the loans of KRW 20 million and the remainder of each of the loans of this case until September 9, 2003, among the loans of KRW 25 million on August 30, 2001.

Therefore, according to the above facts of recognition, the defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from September 10, 2003 to the date of full payment.

3. Determination as to the defendants' defense

A. First, the Defendants asserted that all of the loans of this case claimed by the Plaintiff were repaid. Accordingly, the Defendants’ defenses cannot be accepted on the grounds that the Defendants’ reply to the submission of financial transaction information to the No. 1 and No. 2 and the No. 1 and No. 2 was insufficient to acknowledge the Defendants’ defenses, and there is no other evidence to prove otherwise.

B. In other words, the Defendants asserted that the extinctive prescription of each of the instant loans has expired, and thus, as seen earlier, it is difficult to view that the extinctive prescription has expired at the expiration of ten years from the date of the establishment of each of the instant loans, since each of the instant loans claims was not fixed due date.

However, in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement No. 2, Defendant C, on April 18, 2005, intended to repay each of the instant loans to the Plaintiff by August 30, 2005.

arrow