logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.16 2016가단39243
대여금
Text

1. The Plaintiff, Defendant B, as well as KRW 122,00,000, and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from June 1, 2016 to January 5, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On January 29, 2013, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 35,000,000 to Defendant C (representative director) under Defendant B’s joint and several sureties (Defendant B), etc. (Evidence A 1-1) between January 29, 2013 and April 1, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 122,00,000 to the Defendant side.

B. Defendant B agreed to repay the Plaintiff KRW 122,00,000,000 to May 31, 2016.

(Evidence of Evidence A 10) / [Ground of Recognition] 1 to 13 (including each number), and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, Defendant B and its payment period for the loan of KRW 122,00,000 and the loan of KRW 122,000 from June 1, 2016 to January 5, 2017, the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum under the Civil Act from January 5, 2017, which is the delivery date of the original copy of the payment order of this case, and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the date of complete payment, and Defendant C and C jointly and severally with Defendant C are the representative director of the above amount, as long as the Plaintiff agreed on May 31, 2016 with Defendant C as the payment period for the total loan of the loan of this case to Defendant C and its payment period were changed to May 31, 2016.

From June 1, 2016, the next day, to January 5, 2017, the delivery date of the original copy of the instant payment order, the duty to pay 5% per annum as prescribed by the Civil Act and 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of complete payment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable, and it is so decided as per Disposition by admitting all of them.

arrow