(영문) 서울동부지방법원 2019.11.22 2019가단100593

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) 서울동부지방법원 2019.11.22 2019가단100593

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The fact that the plaintiff lent a total of KRW 20 million to each defendant four times from February 2, 2001 to February 2002, and KRW 8 million from March 2007 to March 2, 2007 does not conflict between the parties or is recognized by comprehensively taking into account the overall purport of the pleadings.

On the other hand, the plaintiff was paid 5 million won out of the total amount of 28 million won.

According to the above facts, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff 23 million won (=28 million won - five million won).

On the other hand, the Plaintiff sought payment from April 28, 2018, that there was an agreement between the Defendant and the interest rate of KRW 500,000 per month, and sought payment from April 28, 2018. However, it is insufficient to recognize the existence of the above interest agreement solely on the basis of each of the statements in the evidence Nos. 2, 5, and 7. Therefore,

2. The defendant's defense, etc. is a defense that the plaintiff paid a total of KRW 59,100,000 to the plaintiff over ten years. Since the above fact of repayment is not a dispute between the parties, the defendant's defense is justified.

In regard to this, the Plaintiff and the Defendant agreed on the interest rate of KRW 50,000 per month, and the Plaintiff, upon receiving cash services from the Defendant, agreed to pay the cash service fee to the Defendant, and the said KRW 59.1 million was fully appropriated for the interest and the cash service fee.

However, the above interest agreement cannot be acknowledged, as mentioned above, and the existence or the number of items in Gap evidence 2, 5, and 7 cannot be recognized by the existence of an agreement to bear the cash service fee, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it.

Therefore, the plaintiff's second defense cannot be accepted.

Ultimately, the Plaintiff’s loan was fully extinguished according to the Defendant’s repayment.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-서울남부지방법원 2018.09.06 2018가단6307

-전주지방법원군산지원 2017.08.08 2016가단58060

-창원지방법원 2017.07.18 2016나7245

-대구지방법원 2017.06.28 2016나305868

-수원지방법원 2016.06.15 2015나19268