logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 창원지방법원진주지원 2016.11.18 2016가단35945
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for KRW 50,00,000 out of KRW 79,046,086 and the said money, respectively, from July 31, 2016 to July 2016.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On February 26, 2009, the Plaintiff leased KRW 100,000,000 to Defendant A Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Co., Ltd.”) as a fund for business start-up, from February 27, 2009, as the loan period of KRW 100,000,000, one year, one year, one year, one year, one year, and 12% per annum, and two years, and Defendant B guaranteed the Defendant Co., Ltd.’s above loan obligation to the Plaintiff.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

The Defendant Company lost its interest on December 30, 201, and on July 30, 2016, the sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan to the Defendant Company as of July 30, 2016 is KRW 79,046,086 (the principal interest of KRW 564,443 in overdue interest of KRW 564,481,643).

[Reasons for Recognition] Entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 79,046,00,000 won with the principal of KRW 50,00,00 among the above money and KRW 79,00,000 from July 31, 2016, the day following the base date for calculation of each of the above amounts, which is the last day of the payment order, to the Defendants until September 24, 2016, 12% per annum, the interest rate for delay, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day until the day of full payment.

3. As to the Defendants’ assertion, the Defendants asserted to the effect that the claim of the instant loan was extinguished due to the lapse of the five-year commercial statute of limitations.

In light of the above facts, the instant loan was made on February 7, 2009; the method of repayment was one year grace period; the method of repayment was made on a quarterly basis; and the fact that the Defendant Company lost the benefit of the period on December 30, 201, as seen earlier; and the fact that the instant payment order was filed on August 9, 201, within five years from the date when the Defendant Company lost its benefit of the period, is apparent in the record; thus, the Defendants’ assertion to the effect that the statute of limitations has expired is groundless.

4. Conclusion.

arrow