logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대전지방법원 2019.04.03 2017가단221492
사해행위취소
Text

1. The defendant shall pay 75,00,000 won to the plaintiff and 24% per annum from March 1, 2017 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff did not set the due date for payment to the Defendant, and the interest was set at 2% per annum (24%) and lent as follows:

Serial 10,000,000 won for a loan day on August 26, 2014, 10,000 won for a loan of KRW 3,00,000 on March 21, 2015; KRW 30,000,000 on April 30, 2015; KRW 2,00,000 on May 26, 2015; KRW 5,50,000 on July 28, 2015; KRW 6.10,000,000 on September 16, 2015; KRW 10,000,000,000 after deducting KRW 1,000,000 for a loan of KRW 5 million; KRW 1,000,000 on September 24, 2015; KRW 1,0000,000 for a loan of KRW 1 million; and

B. The Defendant paid only interest by February 2017, and thereafter paid interest.

[Ground of recognition] A without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 2, purport of whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, since the loan debt of this case is a debt with no fixed time limit, the debtor shall be liable for delay from the time of receiving a request for performance (Article 387(2) of the Civil Act), and the defendant shall be liable for delay from the day after the delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case.

Therefore, barring special circumstances, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amounting to KRW 75 million and the interest and delay damages thereon from March 1, 2017.

3. The Defendant’s assertion asserts that the Defendant paid all principal and interest by remitting the loans of KRW 10 million No. 1,000,000 on November 25, 2014 and KRW 6 million on December 12, 2014.

According to the statement Nos. 1-2 and 1-2 of Eul, it is recognized that the defendant remitted the amount of KRW 5 million to the plaintiff on November 25, 2014, and KRW 6 million on December 12, 201 of the same year.

However, the following circumstances revealed through the respective descriptions of Nos. 1, 1-2, and 2-2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, namely, ① the Defendant was engaged in money transactions from time to time with the Plaintiff, and ② the Defendant.

arrow