logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.06.16 2015가합169
양수금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 160,000,000 won to the plaintiff and 20% per annum from January 20, 2015 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire arguments as to Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the primary cause of claim, Eul, the mother of Eul (former name: D) of the defendant's former wife, lent KRW 160 million to the defendant from the date of 2004, and Eul transferred the loan claim amounting to KRW 160 million to the defendant on Jan. 10, 2005, and notified the defendant of the above transfer. The defendant consented to the assignment of the above claim and promised to pay the above obligation to the plaintiff by Jan. 10, 2005, and issued a promissory note as of Jan. 10, 2005, face value KRW 160 million, and January 10, 2007 to secure this.

According to the above facts of recognition, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff, the transferee of the loan claim, the amount of KRW 160 million, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from January 20, 2015 to the day of complete payment, as sought by the Plaintiff, as requested by the Plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. After the death of E, the Defendant asserts to the effect that C renounced the Plaintiff’s inherited property on the ground of the Plaintiff’s loan claim against the Defendant, and that C paid KRW 200 million to C as compensation for losses incurred from the waiver of the above inherited property during the divorce in 2007, the above loan claim was eventually repaid or offset.

However, C renounced inheritance on the ground of the above loan claim.

Since there is no evidence to prove that the defendant paid KRW 200 million to C as compensation for the waiver of inherited property, the above assertion by the defendant is rejected.

B. The defendant asserts that the issuance of the above promissory note is invalid since the issuance of the above promissory note was made by coercion by the plaintiff. However, the plaintiff's claim of this case is valid.

arrow