(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.11.13 2018가단125737

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) 서울북부지방법원 2018.11.13 2018가단125737

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to the statement in Gap evidence No. 1, the defendant agreed on February 1, 2008 to pay 158,000,000 won to the plaintiff on June 30, 2008, and if delay is made, he shall pay damages for delay at the rate of 30% per annum for the delayed amount to the plaintiff on June 30, 2008. On the same day, the notary public prepared a notarial deed on this issue with No. 71, 2008.

Therefore, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 158,00,000 won and damages for delay from July 1, 2008.

2. The defendant asserts that the above claim has expired due to the lapse of the commercial statute of limitations. The plaintiff asserts that the ten-year statute of limitations has not yet expired by preparing the above notarial deed.

According to the statement in Eul evidence No. 1, the defendant, while running the vehicle import business with the plaintiff from June 2006 to August 14, 2007, can be recognized that the plaintiff received 20 automobile import from the plaintiff during the period from June 2006 to August 14, 2007 and did not pay 158 million won for the sale and import certification. Thus, it is reasonable to view that the debt payment contract based on the above notarial deed is a quasi-loan unless there are special circumstances. It is reasonable to presume that the plaintiff and the defendant, the merchant, as a commercial activity for their own business, and accordingly, a claim newly arising therefrom is subject to the five-year commercial prescription as a commercial claim.

Therefore, on January 17, 2018, which was five years after the due date from June 30, 2008, the fact that the instant lawsuit was filed is apparent in the record, and thus, the extinctive prescription of a claim based on the said debt repayment contract was completed.

The Plaintiff asserted to the effect that the Defendant promised to repay the above claim around 2015, and that the Defendant renounced the statute of limitations interest of the above claim, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

3. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

유사 판례

-대법원 1989. 6. 27. 선고 89다카2957 판결

-서울서부지방법원 2017.01.13 2016나2363

-인천지방법원 2017.10.19 2016가단216167

-서울북부지방법원 2016.03.23 2015가단44646

-서울북부지방법원 2018.11.29 2017나39991