logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2018.04.26 2017가단115603
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 37,500,000 as well as 5% per annum from July 18, 2014 to June 23, 2017 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 13 million to the Defendant.

B. On February 2014, the Plaintiff additionally lent KRW 27 million to the Defendant.

C. After that, the Plaintiff and the Defendant prepared the following loan certificates (Evidence A2).

The loan certificate

1. Original gold: Gold yarn (Won 40,000,000); and

2. Date of repayment: From February 16, 2014 to (80-month repayment).

3. Interest rate: 5% per annum (no interest shall accrue if the principal is overdue).

4. Repayment of principal: 500,000 won (Won 500,00).

5. Date and time of repayment of interest and principal: The 17th of each month;

6. Loss of benefit of time: If the principal and interest are in arrears even once are paid, the obligor shall lose the benefit of time, and if the obligee requests the principal and interest even before the due date for payment, the obligor shall decide to repay without objection.

According to the above loan certificate, the Defendant repaid to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 2.5 million each month from February 16, 2014 to June 17, 2014, but did not repay the loan thereafter.

[Ground] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 through 3 (including provisional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, since the defendant lost the benefit of time, the defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 37.5 million which has not been paid (= KRW 40 million - the repayment amount of KRW 2.5 million) and damages for delay.

B. As to this, the defendant asserts to the effect that the plaintiff exempted the remainder of the obligation after the repayment to the plaintiff of KRW 2.5 million.

However, the testimony of the witness C alone is insufficient to recognize the fact of exemption from obligation, and there is no other evidence to prove it.

The defendant's defense is without merit.

C. Therefore, the Defendant claimed against the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 37.5 million and damages for delay from July 18, 2014, which the Defendant lost the Defendant’s interest, from July 16, 2014, the Plaintiff lost its interest as of July 18, 2014.

arrow