logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2019.01.08 2018가단8059
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 161,00,000 as well as KRW 50,000 among them, from June 19, 2018 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. In addition to the purport of the entire argument in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 4 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff set a loan of KRW 30 million to the defendant on Mar. 8, 2005, with interest rate of KRW 600,000 per month, and on Nov. 29, 2005, with interest rate of KRW 20,000 per annum to the defendant (hereinafter "the loan of this case") on Nov. 29, 2005 (Therefore, the above KRW 50,000 is lent to the real estate executor employed by the plaintiff, and the defendant's argument that he borrowed KRW 30,000 to the plaintiff as a guarantee for KRW 30,000 among them is not accepted), and the defendant is acknowledged to have delayed the payment of interest from March 8, 2009.

According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the annual rate of 15 percent per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings within the aforementioned agreement, from March 19, 2018 to May 2018, 2018, totaling KRW 161 million (= KRW 50 million to KRW 400,000) (= KRW 110,000 to KRW 510,000) of the loan principal of this case, and among them, KRW 50,000 to the Plaintiff. Since June 19, 2018, the following day after the delivery of the original copy of the instant payment order of this case from June 19, 2018 to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion that the defendant borrowed the loan of this case for commercial activities such as real estate execution business, etc., and thus, the period of extinctive prescription under the Commercial Act has expired three years. However, the evidence submitted by the defendant alone is insufficient to recognize that the loan of this case was caused by commercial activities.

Therefore, the defendant's argument on a different premise is without merit.

3. In conclusion, the claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow