(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나64089

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) 서울남부지방법원 2017.05.25 2016나64089

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. According to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, it is acknowledged that the plaintiff lent KRW 27,00,00 to the defendant on February 21, 2002, and that the plaintiff was paid KRW 10,370,240 from the defendant, and that the plaintiff was paid KRW 16,629,760 from April 13, 2016 to the day of full payment. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the amount calculated at the rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 13, 2016 to the day of full payment.

2. The Defendant asserts that the statute of limitations has expired for the instant loan claim, and the Plaintiff prepared a notarial deed of a bill to secure the payment of the underlying claim, and the Defendant’s seizure of the corporeal movables by exercising the right to the bill.

In order to secure the payment of the underlying claim, if between the parties against whom a bill has been issued and the creditor exercises his right by provisionally seizing the debtor's property as the preserved right, the period of extinctive prescription of the underlying claim shall be interrupted.

According to the above evidence, it is recognized that the Plaintiff received dividends of KRW 370,240 by seizing corporeal movables owned by the Defendant as of April 21, 2006 on the basis of a bill of exchange issued by the Plaintiff to secure the payment of the instant loan by means of a notarial deed on the basis of a bill issued by the Plaintiff to secure the payment of the instant loan.

Therefore, the statute of limitations of the loan claim of this case was interrupted by seizing the defendant's property based on the bill of exchange and the statute of limitations is newly run from the time of receipt of dividends.

Meanwhile, the Defendant asserts to the effect that, even if the dividend was received, the lapse of five-year extinctive prescription of commercial claims was extinguished.

However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that the instant loan claim occurred due to commercial activities, and thus, the instant loan claim.

유사 판례

-대법원 2002. 2. 26. 선고 2000다25484 판결

-대법원 2010. 5. 13. 선고 2010다6345 판결

-대법원 1999. 6. 11. 선고 99다16378 판결

-대법원 2016.03.24 2015다70372

-대법원 2016.3.24.선고 2015다70372 판결