logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원서부지원 2017.06.01 2016가합52235
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 265,390,749 for the Plaintiff and KRW 12% per annum from June 3, 2016 to January 20, 2017.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. According to the overall purport of each statement and pleading of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 4 (including a serial number; hereinafter the same shall apply) to determine outstanding amount, the plaintiff has made a monetary transaction with the defendant (hereinafter "money transaction in this case") by lending money to the defendant from around 2000 to around 2016, etc. The amount of the outstanding amount against the defendant as of March 17, 2016, as of March 17, 2016, is KRW 265,390,749, and the defendant paid the outstanding amount to the defendant as of June 2, 2016 to the plaintiff 265,390,749 to June 18, 2016 to June 2, 2016 x the agreed rate of KRW 6,811,69,265,390,749 to June 2, 2016 x the agreed rate of KRW 390 to June 30, 2016).

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from June 3, 2016 to January 20, 2017, which is the date of service of the copy of the complaint in this case from June 3, 2016, which is the day following the date of the final payment of the agreed interest amount, and 15% per annum from the following day to the day of full payment.

B. As to the judgment on the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant claimed that the Defendant did not have any outstanding claim since it borrowed a total of KRW 2,229,109,837 from around 2006 to 2016, but repaid a total of KRW 2,261,528,869, compared to the above loans.

The descriptions of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 of the Dol-man No. 1 and 2 are insufficient to recognize that the Plaintiff did not have any outstanding obligation to the Plaintiff by repaying the principal and interest of the loan to the Plaintiff as alleged by the Defendant, and there is no other evidence

Rather, according to the above evidence, the defendant was engaged in the monetary transaction of this case with the plaintiff.

arrow