logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원 2016.06.23 2016가단13884
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 42,843,90 among the Plaintiff and KRW 9,50,000 among them, shall be KRW 33,293,90 from March 10, 2016, and KRW 33,293,90.

Reasons

The Defendant borrowed KRW 43,293,90 from the Plaintiff on September 7, 2015 and agreed to pay KRW 10,000 among them until December 31, 2015, and the remainder of KRW 33,293,90 may be recognized as either there is no dispute between the parties, or in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement of evidence No. 1, and the fact that the Plaintiff received KRW 450,000,00, out of the amount that the Plaintiff intended to receive by December 31, 2015 is a person.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 9,550,000 won which has yet to be paid to the plaintiff until December 31, 2015, and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum from the day after a document equivalent to the complaint of this case was served to the defendant as requested by the plaintiff to the day of complete payment. Further, in light of the fact that the defendant fails to pay the money to be paid until December 31, 2015, until the day after the maturity date of the argument of this case, 33,293,90 won which the plaintiff decided to pay to the defendant by December 31, 2016 should be claimed in advance. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above 33,293,90 won and damages for delay at the rate of 15% per annum per annum from January 1, 2017 following the maturity date to the day of complete payment.

(1) The Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay against KRW 33,293,90 is filed on or after the day on which a document corresponding to the instant complaint was delivered. However, even according to the description of the loan certificate of this case, the Plaintiff’s claim for damages for delay on or after December 31, 2015 cannot be accepted, on the ground that the Defendant’s payment of the said money was prohibited until December 31, 2015, and there is no ground to deem that the Defendant’s payment of the money was lost due to the said payment made by December 31, 2016.

arrow