logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2016.06.14 2015가단36777
어음금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 51,595,00 for the Plaintiff and 6% per annum from August 14, 2014 to January 31, 2016.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 14, 2012, the Defendant issued one copy of the Promissory Notes (hereinafter “instant Promissory Notes”) to the Plaintiff at par value of KRW 51,595,00, and the date of payment on December 31, 2012, the place and place of payment, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, Sungnam-si, and the Plaintiff.

B. On December 31, 2012, the above payment date, the Plaintiff presented the bill of this case at the above payment place, but the Defendant did not pay the said bill.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence No. 1, purport of whole pleadings

2. Judgment on the plaintiff's claim

A. According to the facts of the judgment on the Plaintiff’s cause of claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 51,595,000 and the delay damages from January 1, 2013, which is the day following the due date, unless there exist other special circumstances.

However, on December 1, 2015, the Plaintiff received five million won from the Defendant, and the Plaintiff paid the said amount from January 1, 2013 to August 13, 2014, the Plaintiff was a person who used the said amount for payment of 5,004,004,008 won for delay from January 1, 2013 to August 13, 2014 x 6% x 590/365 days.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 51,595,00 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 6% per annum as stipulated in the Bills of Exchange and Promissory Notes Act from August 14, 2014 to January 31, 2016, the delivery date of a copy of the instant bill, and 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the date of full payment.

B. The defendant's assertion asserts that the above five million won should be appropriated for the repayment of principal, because there was no agreement to allow the payment of interest.

However, unless otherwise agreed by the Plaintiff and the Defendant on the order of appropriation for repayment, the money paid by the Defendant pursuant to Article 479 of the Civil Code shall be appropriated for repayment in the order of interest and principal.

However, between the plaintiff and the defendant.

arrow