(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.01 2016가단4182

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) 서울동부지방법원 2016.06.01 2016가단4182

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 42,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from January 12, 2016 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. The plaintiff remitted KRW 70,00,000 to B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter referred to as the "B") on December 18, 2008 when the purport of the entire pleadings is added to the statement of evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, and the defendant, as the representative director of B, agreed on May 15, 2009 to pay the plaintiff the above KRW 70,000,000 to the plaintiff by September 30, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as the "agreement of this case"), and there is no counter-proof, and the fact that the defendant paid the plaintiff KRW 28,00,000 out of the contract amount of this case to the plaintiff is the plaintiff.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 42,000,000 (=70,000-28,000,000) out of the contract amount of this case and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning Expedition, etc. of Legal Proceedings from January 12, 2016 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the due date prescribed by the agreement of this case.

2. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. As to this, the defendant following the agreement of this case, since the defendant was placed in a situation in which the defendant is no longer able to operate B, adjusted the assets of B between the creditors including the plaintiff and the defendant, and agreed to repay the remaining debts and receive a reduction in the amount of sugar. Accordingly, the defendant organized B's assets, such as selling B's stores, and repaid 30% of the defendant's and B's obligations, so the plaintiff cannot claim the remainder of the contract of this case against the defendant.

B. However, the defendant's assertion is without merit, since there is no evidence to acknowledge that the plaintiff agreed to waive or exempt the claim for the remainder of the agreed amount that remains after the plaintiff received part of the agreed amount from the defendant by organizing the property B with the defendant.

3. If so, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified within the above scope of recognition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-광주지방법원 2016.02.17 2015나5749

-울산지방법원 2015.08.19 2014나7858

-서울동부지방법원 2015.10.28 2015가단19064

-수원지방법원 2015.11.25 2014가단49285

-제주지방법원 2016.11.08 2016가단54284