(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2015가단5081061

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2015가단5081061

양수금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the annual amount of KRW 143,623,413 and KRW 62,227,730 among them, from November 18, 2014 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of each of the statements and arguments evidence Nos. 1, 2-2, 3, 3-2, 15, and 6, it is recognized that the Defendant acquired each of the claims against the Defendant from the financial institutions listed below, and that the financial institution that transferred the claim was notified to the Defendant.

(Calculation Date) According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay at the rate of 143,623,413,623,413 per annum from June 18, 2014 to June 17, 2017, with respect to KRW 75,30,300,000 and KRW 62,227,730,730,683 won per annum 143,623,413,00 won per annum from June 8, 2007, 130,00 won and overdraft 75,309,181 won per annum 134,109,109,00 won per annum 62,227,227,730 won, total of the principal and interest transferred to the Plaintiff and the principal of KRW 143,623,413,627,730 from the date following the calculation base date.

2. Meanwhile, the Plaintiff asserts that the SBI Savings Bank received KRW 5,260,703 of the remaining principal from among the loans of KRW 6 million lent to the Defendant as a general loan subject on July 10, 2007.

According to the statement 1 of the evidence Nos. 2 and 3, the fact that the Plaintiff entered into an agreement on the acquisition of bonds with the SBI Savings Bank as alleged, and the notice of the claim is acknowledged, but further, the examination of whether the SBI Savings Bank extended a loan to the Defendant as alleged by the Defendant is insufficient to recognize it only by the evidence No. 4, which appears to be the electronic output that the SBI Savings Bank voluntarily prepared without the involvement of the Defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

The plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim is justified within the above scope of recognition, and the remaining claim is dismissed as it is without merit.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.10.15 2014가단5334515

-울산지방법원 2016.11.25 2016가단64328

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.05.31 2018가단200305

-서울동부지방법원 2017.06.09 2016나28479

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.04.26 2017가단6322