(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.06.05 2014나15192

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 대전지방법원 2015.06.05 2014나15192

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. On June 10, 2006, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 3,200,000 per annum to the Defendant on January 30, 2007. Around January 8, 2007, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to the effect that the repayment date for the above amount shall be January 30, 2007, but if the payment is not made within the above deadline, the Plaintiff shall pay 3% interest per month until the date of repayment (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, evidence No. 1, testimony by witness C of the first instance trial, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the reasoning of the judgment on the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant’s maximum interest rate of KRW 3,200,00 in loan and KRW 36 per annum from June 10, 2006 to June 29, 2007, which is the date of loan, as the Plaintiff seeks, and Article 2(1) of the former Interest Limitation Act (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) (amended by Act No. 12227, Jan. 14, 2014) applies to the Plaintiff in this case where the contract is concluded or renewed for the first time after July 15, 2014 pursuant to Article 2(1) of the same Act, which is the maximum interest rate of KRW 3,200,00,00, which was amended by Act No. 12227, Jul. 15, 2014.

The agreed interest shall be payable at the rate of the agreed interest.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The purport of the defendant's assertion is that the loan certificate of this case was made by the plaintiff's duress, and therefore the defendant is not obligated to return the above money to the plaintiff.

B. We examine the judgment, and there is no evidence to support the defendant's assertion that the defendant prepared the loan certificate of this case by the plaintiff's coercion, and the defendant's defense is without merit.

4. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified, and the judgment of the court of first instance is just.

참조조문

-이자제한법 제2조 제1항

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.29 2015가합6341

-서울동부지방법원 2018.11.01 2018가단127850

-광주지방법원 2019.03.14 2018가단28803

-청주지방법원 2020.04.22 2019가합12968

-대전지방법원 2015.11.27 2015나1664