(영문) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.05.31 2016가합8869

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) 수원지방법원 안산지원 2018.05.31 2016가합8869

부당이득금

Text

1. The Defendant: (a) KRW 244,037,225 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 5% per annum from November 11, 2016 to May 31, 2018 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. The parties' assertion

A. The Plaintiff asserted that the Plaintiff borrowed money from the Defendant from June 1, 2012 to August 30, 2016 (hereinafter “instant loan”) and repaid the said money.

In the process, ① the amount paid on June 10, 2013 and the amount paid by the Defendant for the delivery of real estate sales proceeds also are calculated in excess of the principal of the loan by including the amount paid as loan, and ② the Plaintiff and the Defendant, although they did not set the interest rate on the loan, on the grounds that the interest to be paid by the Plaintiff was calculated unfairly (the Plaintiff claimed that the interest should be calculated at the rate of 5% per annum because there is no agreement on the interest rate, although the Plaintiff paid the interest) and the interest to be paid by the Plaintiff was calculated unfairly (the Plaintiff’s payment of interest should be calculated at the rate of 5% per annum) and thus, the Plaintiff paid the amount to the Defendant more than

B. The Defendant’s assertion ① agreed to the interest rate of 5% (60% per annum) per month when the Defendant agreed to lend money to the Plaintiff. In accordance with the above interest agreement, the amount paid by the Plaintiff as the name of repayment does not exceed the total amount of the principal and interest of the loan of this case.

② On the other hand, the Defendant did not calculate the principal of the borrowed money to the Plaintiff for the purpose of delivering the real estate purchase price.

③ Of the money claimed by the Plaintiff as the title of debt repayment, the money paid out of the counter-loans to which the Plaintiff joined includes the money, and the amount equivalent to the counter-loans cannot be deemed to have been paid by the Plaintiff as the repayment of the loan in this case.

④ The Plaintiff paid excessive loans to the Defendant in excess of the principal and interest of the borrowed loan.

Even if so, the defendant's claim for return of unjust enrichment against the plaintiff.

유사 판례

-대법원 2012. 4. 13. 선고 2010다8693 판결

-의정부지방법원 2015.05.27 2013가합9670

-서울서부지방법원 2016.05.31 2015가단10953

-수원지방법원성남지원 2016.10.18 2015가단34559

-부산지방법원 2018.11.07 2018나47479