logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 전주지방법원 2016.06.17 2014가합7314
대여금
Text

1. As to the Plaintiff A’s KRW 124,00,000 and KRW 70,000,00 among them, Defendant C shall be from April 11, 2015 to June 17, 2016.

Reasons

1. Determination as to Plaintiff A’s claim

A. According to the overall purport of the statements and arguments by Gap evidence No. 1-1 and 2 as to the part of the claim amounting to KRW 100 million, Defendant C agreed to pay KRW 100 million including the profits from its operation after having invested KRW 70 million around November 27, 201 to Plaintiff A on May 27, 201.

Therefore, Defendant C is obligated to pay to Plaintiff A the amount of KRW 100 million and the amount of KRW 70 million invested principal that Plaintiff A seeks from April 11, 2015 to June 17, 2016, which is deemed reasonable for Defendant C to dispute as to the existence or scope of the obligation to perform, and the amount of delay damages calculated at the rate of 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act 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.

(Plaintiff A claimed the payment of interest or delay damages calculated from June 28, 2014 for the above KRW 70 million, but there is no evidence to prove that the interest or payment period has been fixed. Accordingly, Defendant C is liable for delay upon receipt of the request for performance).

According to the reasoning of the judgment on the claim amounting to KRW 24 million, Gap evidence No. 2 and the purport of the entire pleadings, Plaintiff C and the above Plaintiff agreed to receive KRW 24 million interest rate of KRW 5% per annum on March 5, 2014, and the due date of payment from February 27, 2016 (one million each month from March 27, 2014 to February 27, 2016), but it is recognized that Defendant C violated the above agreement, and that it was determined to lose the benefit of division and due date.

Therefore, it is evident that Defendant C served the Plaintiff A with a copy of the instant complaint from June 28, 2014, which the Plaintiff sought after March 5, 2014.

arrow