(영문) 의정부지방법원 2016.12.22 2016나54842

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) 의정부지방법원 2016.12.22 2016나54842

대여금

Text

1. The judgment of the first instance court, including the claim of the Plaintiff’s succeeding intervenor, shall be modified as follows:

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On October 23, 2012, the Plaintiff loaned 20,000,000 won to Defendant A for the loan period of 36 months, the loan interest rate of 27.9% per annum, and the overdue interest rate of 33%. Defendant B guaranteed the above loan obligations within the maximum of 26,00,000 won.

B. The Defendant A lost the benefit of July 1, 2013 due to the delay in payment of interest, and as of the above date, there were 20,274,927 won (i.e., the loan principal of KRW 18,480,276, and delay damages of KRW 1,63,536).

C. On May 20, 2016, the Plaintiff transferred the claim against the Defendant to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff, and at that time notified the Defendant A of the transfer.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 6, purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts, the Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Intervenor succeeding to the Plaintiff 20,274,927 won of the principal and interest of KRW 18,480,276 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 33% per annum from July 2, 2013 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the day of loss of the interest due, to the day of full payment. Defendant B is liable to pay within the limit of KRW 26,00,000,000.

B. On this basis, Defendant A prepared an application for a loan with the land owner to sell a vehicle at the site of preparing an application for a loan with respect to the said loan, but the land owner did not have any obligation to pay the loan since it did not receive any profit at all. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge the application.

In addition, Defendant B asserts that he did not affix his seal on the loan application form and that Defendant A arbitrarily affixed his seal, but there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the above assertion by the Defendants is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as without merit, and the plaintiff's claim against the defendant A is justified, and the claim against the defendant B is above.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.12.13 2017가합524298

-인천지방법원부천지원 2016.05.17 2016가단102933

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.07.25 2019가단5041900

-부산지방법원 2018.08.17 2017나10210

-대전지방법원 2016.02.12 2014가단203516