logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
arrow
(영문) 광주지방법원 순천지원 2017.02.09 2016가단10647
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 33,519,00 and the Plaintiff’s annual rate of KRW 5% from July 19, 2016 to February 9, 2017.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion: (a) around May 1, 2013, the Plaintiff lent KRW 10 million to the Defendant for the use of high water business expenses; and (b) the Defendant, upon the Defendant’s request, is liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 18 million for the purchase of KRW 237.4 square meters for the purchase of KRW 237.4 square meters for the amount of real estate to D account on March 10, 2014; and (c) on April 1, 2014, the amount of KRW 13.3 million for the registration tax and for the certified judicial scrivener’s account to D account; and (d) the amount of KRW 7,219,000 for the remainder of real estate to D account. Therefore, the Defendant is liable to pay to the Plaintiff.

2. Determination:

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion on this part is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge the loan amounting to KRW 10 million on May 2013, 201.

B. The fact that the Plaintiff remitted KRW 33,519,000 to D and E’s account on March 10, 2014 and April 1, 2014 at the Defendant’s request and lent KRW 33,519,000 to the remaining loan 33,519,00 does not conflict between the parties.

Therefore, the defendant is liable to pay to the plaintiff KRW 33,519,00 and delay damages for the loans that have not been repaid to the plaintiff.

In regard to this, the defendant argues that the defendant set off the above loan obligation with the total of KRW 43,20,000,000 which was not received from the plaintiff as the automatic bond in lieu of the plaintiff's room for 3 years.

However, the evidence presented by the defendant alone was managed by the defendant for 3 years.

In addition, it is not sufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff’s benefits to be paid from the Plaintiff amount to KRW 43,200,000 due to such management, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge this. Therefore, the Defendant’s defense is without merit.

C. Ultimately, the Defendant’s defense over the existence and scope of the obligation of the Defendant from July 19, 2016, which was the day following the date on which the original copy of the instant payment order was served to the Defendant, as the Plaintiff seeks, is 5% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act until February 9, 2017, which is the date of this decision, and the next day.

arrow