logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 울산지방법원 2017.09.26 2016가단61671
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claims against the defendants are all dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. Summary of the parties’ assertion

A. Plaintiff (1) The Plaintiff’s attached network D loaned the Defendants the total amount of KRW 20 million on May 30, 200, and KRW 30 million on February 22, 2002, to the Defendants. The Plaintiff solely succeeded to the Plaintiff’s claim for loans against the Defendants (hereinafter “instant loan claim”).

Therefore, the above loans are to be repaid to the defendants.

(2) As the Defendants paid interest on the above loan claims until January 2014, the extinctive prescription was interrupted.

I would like to say.

B. Defendants (1) The network D and Defendant B were in an internal relationship. The amount claimed by the Plaintiff is not a loan, but the amount that the network D and Defendant B donated to the Defendants.

(2) Even if a domestic loan was made, the credit was extinguished by the expiration of the statute of limitations.

2. Determination, the existence of the instant loan claims, as alleged by the Plaintiff.

Even if the instant lawsuit was filed after the lapse of 10 years from February 22, 2002, which was the date of the final occurrence of the instant loan claim, the instant loan claim expired due to the expiration of the statute of limitations.

I would like to say.

The defendants' assertion of extinctive prescription is justified.

The Plaintiff asserted that the Defendants approved the obligation by paying interest on the instant loan claim, but it is not sufficient to acknowledge the Plaintiff’s written evidence Nos. 3 and 6 alone, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

(Recording) The Plaintiff’s assertion is not acceptable as evidence to support the Plaintiff’s assertion, as it is difficult to know at the time of interruption of the statute of limitations, such as without mentioning at any time when the interest payment time was made, although Defendant B mentioned on the interest.

3. Dismissal of the Plaintiff’s claim.

arrow