logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2016.08.19 2015가단40590
전세보증금반환
Text

1. As to KRW 65,724,604 and KRW 30,000 among the Plaintiff, the Defendant shall have 20% per annum from November 25, 2006 to September 30, 2015.

Reasons

1. In full view of the overall purport of the statements and arguments stated in Gap evidence Nos. 1, 3, 12, 13, 15, 18, and 19 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff filed a lawsuit against the defendant for the return of the lease deposit with the Seoul Northern District Court 1997Gadan22048, Oct. 21, 1997, "the defendant shall pay 5% per annum from July 5, 1996 to July 29, 197, and 25% per annum from the next day to the full payment date" (hereinafter "the judgment of this case"), and the plaintiff may file a claim for the return of the lease deposit with the defendant for a compulsory auction as to the land owned by the defendant and the building owned by the defendant, and the plaintiff may file an application for the compulsory auction as of 30,000 and 30,000 won per annum 25% per annum from the next date to the full payment date.

According to the above facts, the dividends received by the Plaintiff were appropriated for the total amount of KRW 71,568,492 [1,602,739 won (the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 5% per annum from July 5, 1996 to July 29, 1997, the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 30,000,000 won) 69,965,753 won (the damages for delay calculated at the rate of 25% per annum from July 30, 1997 to November 24, 206).

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 65,724,604 won [35,724,604 won with the principal of 30,00,000 won (71,568,492 won - 35,843,888 won)] and 30,000 won with the interest of 20% per annum from November 25, 2006 to September 30, 2015 and damages for delay calculated with 15% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment.

2. The defendant's assertion asserts that the period of extinctive prescription of the plaintiff's loan claim against the defendant has expired.

As seen earlier, the instant judgment became final and conclusive on November 8, 1997, and the ten-year extinctive prescription will run thereafter.

(b).

arrow