logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.08.24 2017나66673
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On April 1, 2006, the Choung Bank Co., Ltd. (the Choung Bank was merged with the Plaintiff, which was changed to the Plaintiff on the same day; hereinafter “ Choung Bank”) set loans at KRW 10 million to B on October 24, 1995, the due date for repayment was August 21, 1998, the overdue interest rate was 17% per annum, and the overdue interest rate was 17% per annum.

(hereinafter “instant loan”). (b)

The Defendant and C guaranteed the instant loan on the same day.

C. As of July 1, 2013, the sum of the principal and interest of loans that the Plaintiff did not receive from B is KRW 41,860,849, and among them, the principal is KRW 9,99,403.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap 1 and 2 evidence, purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the facts of the determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant, a joint and several surety under the loan contract of this case, is jointly and severally liable to pay the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated by the rate of 17% per annum, which is the date following the date of calculating the interest accrued from July 2, 2013 to the date of full payment, as to the amount of KRW 41,860,849 in total, and the principal amount of KRW 9,99,403 in total, as well as the amount of KRW 41,860,849 in outstanding loans

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. As to the judgment on the defendant's defense, since the defendant defense that the claim of the loan of this case had expired after the expiration of the statute of limitations, the defendant's defense of the statute of limitations is proved to be 5 years in accordance with the main sentence of Article 64 of the Commercial Act, as a commercial claim of the plaintiff which is the merchant of the loan of this case. The fact that the plaintiff's lawsuit of this case was received on July 31, 2013 after the lapse of 5 years from the due date of the repayment of the loan of this case is apparent in the record,

B. On November 19, 2003, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit claiming the payment of the instant loan claim against the Defendant (Seoul Central District Court 2003Gaga257243, Seoul Central District Court 2003).

arrow