(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.28 2016가단237701

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.03.28 2016가단237701

대여금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff the amount of KRW 26,343,917 and KRW 25,606,959 from August 27, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 16, 2015, the Defendant agreed on KRW 37,000,000 per annum with respect to loans given from the Plaintiff, and agreed on KRW 9.5% per annum with respect to overdue interest rate, 29% per annum with respect to overdue interest rate, and 36 months with respect to repayment method by equal installments with principal and interest.

B. The Defendant lost the interest due to the failure to repay the above loans properly. As of August 26, 2016, the above loans amount to KRW 25,606,959 as of August 26, 2016, the total amount of KRW 26,343,917 as of August 26, 2016 remains.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the principal and interest of KRW 26,343,917 as well as the principal of KRW 25,606,959 with interest rate of KRW 29% per annum from August 27, 2016 to the date of full payment.

B. On this ground, the defendant alleged that it was merely a form of the above loan agreement in the name of the defendant that he lent the name of the defendant to purchase a secondhand car, and that he could not respond to the plaintiff's claim of this case. However, as long as the defendant entered into the above loan agreement with the plaintiff, it cannot be exempted from the defendant's obligation against the plaintiff, regardless of the fact that he did not make a separate claim against B.

As such, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

In addition, even though the transaction price of a secondhand car is 19,50,000 won or more, the defendant did not comply with the plaintiff's claim of this case in collusion with C, a loan agent, etc., and conducted a loan of KRW 37,00,000 exceeding that of the vehicle transaction price by illegal means. Thus, the defendant cannot accept the plaintiff's claim of this case. However, the defendant's claim of this case is insufficient to recognize the defendant's above assertion, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2016.01.14 2015나57954

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.21 2016가단152217

-수원지방법원 2018.10.10 2018가단523095

-서울남부지방법원 2015.03.11 2015가단216

-광주지방법원 2015.02.25 2014가단526675