(영문) 인천지방법원 2015.01.20 2014가합10942

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) 인천지방법원 2015.01.20 2014가합10942

대여금반환

Text

1. From July 1, 2013 to January 20, 2015, the Defendant paid KRW 128,203,816 to the Plaintiff and KRW 110,000 among them.

Reasons

1. As to the cause of the claim, comprehensively taking account of the following: Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 5, Gap evidence Nos. 2-1 and 2-2 (the fact that the defendant directly affixed his/her signature and sealed on the evidence Nos. 1 and 2-1 of the evidence No. 2 (the evidence No. 1 (the evidence No. 1) and the evidence No. 2) does not conflict between the parties, each of the above loan certificates is presumed to have been authentic as a whole. The defendant claims that all of the above loan certificates were made by the plaintiff's coercion, but no evidence exists to prove the defendant's assertion that the above assertion was made by the plaintiff's coercion, the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 10 million interest rate of KRW 1,00,000 to the defendant several times from July 4, 2010 to July 27, 2011, the fact that the defendant agreed to pay the principal and interest of the loan to the plaintiff up to April 29, 2013.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 128,203,816 (=interest of KRW 110,00,000 on the borrowed principal) and the interest of KRW 110,00,00 on the borrowed principal from July 1, 2013 to January 20, 2015, the agreed interest rate of KRW 1,00,000 on the agreed interest rate of KRW 1,00,000, and the interest rate of KRW 20% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant did not borrow the above principal of the loan from the plaintiff, but did not have an obligation to return it because it was invested. However, each statement of evidence Nos. 1 through 42 alone is insufficient to reverse the above facts, and there is no other evidence supporting the defendant's above argument, and the defendant's above assertion is rejected.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원 2015.11.26 2014가단30649

-대구고등법원 2016.09.28 2016나128

-춘천지방법원 2016.03.25 2015나2762

-의정부지방법원 2019.12.11 2019가단112786

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가합102037