(영문) 창원지방법원 2017.11.09 2017나2551 | 리걸엔진

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) 창원지방법원 2017.11.09 2017나2551

약정금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1..

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) On December 20, 2012, the Plaintiff joined the order of succession, and paid KRW 500,000 per month the deposit amount. Of the limit amounting to KRW 10,000,000 to be received on May 20, 2014, the Plaintiff received only KRW 5 million from the Defendant. 2) On February 14, 2016, the Defendant prepared a loan certificate to the effect that “the Defendant shall pay KRW 2,00,000 to the Plaintiff as the deposit amount, but the Defendant shall pay KRW 1,00,000 to the Plaintiff in installments in May and June (hereinafter “the loan certificate of this case”).

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts of recognition, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 2 million per annum from February 25, 2017 to the day of full payment, which is calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings, which is the day following the service of the original copy of the instant payment order, as sought by the Plaintiff, as the payment deadline after the above payment deadline.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The Defendant asserts to the effect that, as the Defendant agreed with C to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2 million that the Defendant should pay to C, C has taken over the obligation based on the loan certificate of this case as a discharge.

However, there is no dispute between the parties that the Plaintiff had to receive KRW 2 million from the Defendant, among the fraternitys that the Plaintiff had to receive from the Defendant, but according to the evidence Nos. 1 and 2, the Defendant’s obligation based on the loan certificate of this case seems to be due to the remainder except for the Plaintiff’s KRW 5 million from the fraternitys that the Plaintiff had not received from the Defendant, to the KRW 2 million, which the Plaintiff had to receive from the Defendant. Thus, the Defendant’s above assertion is without merit.

B. The defendant did not pay the plaintiff for the allegation of debt settlement.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-창원지방법원 2019.03.21 2018나2657

-전주지방법원 2019.04.05 2018나1486

-부산지방법원 2014.10.22 2013가단67668

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.03.29 2017나60118

-수원지방법원안산지원 2016.12.21 2016가단2086