(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2015.03.27 2014가단238144

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) 서울남부지방법원 2015.03.27 2014가단238144

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In full view of the Plaintiff’s written evidence No. 1’s claim and the purport of the entire argument, the Defendant, a construction business operator, borrowed the construction cost from the Plaintiff, but failed to repay the borrowed money, and thus, the Defendant, on July 10, 2004, paid the Plaintiff in installments from August 2004 to July 2006, hereinafter “instant payment note.”

Since it is recognized that the document was prepared and delivered, the defendant is obligated to pay 30 million won and damages for delay to the plaintiff.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The parties asserted that the plaintiff's claim against the defendant against the defendant has ceased to exist over the commercial statute of limitations, and the plaintiff asserts that the ten-year statute of limitations is applied since the defendant's claim against the defendant was changed to the defendant's obligation as a quasi-loan loan contract.

B. In light of the fact that the instant payment rejection merely states the method of payment of the existing loan and there is no statement concerning the termination of the existing loan or the burden of new debt, it is reasonable to interpret it as an extension of the maturity of the existing loan, not a quasi-loan contract, but an extension of the maturity of the existing loan repayment, and therefore, the prescription of the obligation is not changed due to the preparation

Meanwhile, since the Defendant’s debt to the Plaintiff was borrowed from the merchant’s operating capital, commercial statute of limitations applies to the Plaintiff’s debt. It is clear in the record that the instant lawsuit was filed on July 2006, which was the last due date under the instant letter of claim for payment, and on June 13, 2014, which was five years later than the commercial statute of limitations. As such, the Plaintiff’s debt to the Defendant was extinguished by the statute of limitations.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is unfair, and it is dismissed. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2015.12.04 2015가단14831

-서울고등법원 2020.01.10 2019나2032949

-인천지방법원 2019.04.18 2017나67615

-대전지방법원천안지원 2019.06.26 2018가단109710