(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.12 2016나81477

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.09.12 2016나81477

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

[Claim]

Reasons

In full view of the purport of the arguments in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the plaintiff shall lend interest of KRW 300,000 per month to the defendant and KRW 300,000 per month after 3 months after the due date for payment, respectively, and shall repay interest of KRW 40,000 on Oct. 31, 2006 to the defendant on June 31, 2007. The bank shall pay interest of KRW 20,000,000,000 to the defendant, and shall pay the remainder of KRW 20,000,000 by determining that the defendant shall pay for the interest of KRW 20,000.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the total amount of KRW 60 million of the leased principal and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from June 23, 2016 to the day of complete payment, which is the day following the day when the application for the payment order of this case was served to the defendant after each due date, as requested by the plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

(1) The defendant asserts that the plaintiff paid the principal and interest in addition to daily allowances on March 2, 2007, KRW 160,000 on March 13, 2007, KRW 40,000 on March 19, 2007, and KRW 50,000 on April 18, 2007, all of which were paid by the plaintiff, was appropriated for the interest and delay damages before the payment date. The defendant asserts that ① the plaintiff renounced all of the loan claims of this case, ② he repaid the house of this case to the plaintiff with the house of this case on July 2, 2006, and ③ at the time of singing singing, the plaintiff paid the principal and interest in addition to daily allowances, but the defendant asserted that he paid the loan of KRW 10 million on July 2006, as well as the fact that each of the loan claims of this case was established.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion is not accepted.

3. The plaintiff's claim should be accepted on the ground of its reasoning.

The judgment of the first instance court is just in conclusion, and the defendant's appeal is dismissed as it is groundless.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원평택지원 2017.08.18 2016가단50028

-전주지방법원 2014.11.27 2014가단21153

-울산지방법원 2017.10.17 2016가단66829

-창원지방법원 2015.07.16 2015나30934

-제주지방법원 2014.12.02 2013가단15851