logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.25 2014가단219018
양수금 청구
Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 20,000,000 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from April 19, 2015 to November 25, 2015; and (b) the Plaintiff.

Reasons

C A lent KRW 20 million to the Defendant, and C transferred a loan claim of KRW 20 million to the Defendant on February 25, 2014 to the Plaintiff on February 26, 2014, and notified the Defendant of the fact of transferring the said assignment of claim on February 26, 2014, is not in dispute between the parties, or is recognized by the purport of the entire pleading in each of the statements in subparagraphs 1 through 3.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff as the transferee a loan of KRW 20 million and damages for delay.

On the other hand, the Plaintiff claimed for the payment of damages for delay from the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case with respect to the above loan, but in the case of a loan for consumption for which the time of repayment is not specified, the lender shall demand the return with a reasonable period fixed. Thus, the damages for delay with respect to the loan shall be calculated from the day after the reasonable period from the time when the notice was received. In this case

There is no evidence to prove that the Plaintiff notified the Defendant of the return of the above loan prior to the filing of the instant lawsuit.

Therefore, there is damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act from the next day after the due date of repayment of the above loan, which appears to have expired from March 18, 2015, when the defendant notified the return of the above loan from the plaintiff on March 18, 2015, when the copy of the complaint of this case was served. Thus, the plaintiff's claim in excess is without merit.

Therefore, from April 19, 2015 on the day following the date when the Defendant notified the Plaintiff to return the loan to the Plaintiff, it is reasonable to dispute about the existence or scope of the Defendant’s obligation from April 19, 2015 to November 25, 2015, which is the date when the judgment was rendered, 5% per annum under the Civil Act, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

arrow