logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2019.05.22 2018가단114874
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants shall jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 150,000,000 and the interest rate thereon from May 4, 2013 to the date of full payment.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1 of the judgment as to the cause of the claim No. 1, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 300 million to Defendant B on June 4, 2012 as interest rate of KRW 2.5% and due date of repayment on December 4, 2012, and the fact that Defendant C guaranteed the said obligation can be acknowledged.

However, in light of the purport of the overall circumstances before and after the loan certificate, including the language and form of the loan certificate, the amount of the interest actually paid, the loan interest rate at the time, the transaction practices, etc., it is reasonable to deem that there was an agreement between the parties to pay the interest calculated at the rate of 4% per month and 2.5% per month.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiff, as the Defendants, has received interest payment of KRW 150 million and until May 3, 2013.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the remainder of KRW 150 million and the agreed interest rate of KRW 150 million, which is calculated at the rate of 24% per annum from May 4, 2013 to the date of full payment, as agreed upon by the Plaintiff.

2. On September 26, 2014, Defendant B agreed between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff to settle the above loan repayment obligation by transferring the claim amounting to KRW 500 million out of KRW 1.55 billion of the provisional contract deposit return claim against Defendant B and E, and pursuant to the agreement, Defendant B transferred KRW 500 million of the claim against Defendant B and E to the Plaintiff. As such, Defendant B asserted that the Plaintiff’s claim against the Defendants was extinguished by repayment.

It is not reasonable to presume that an obligor transfers another obligation to a creditor in relation to the repayment of obligation is transferred by means of a security for repayment of obligation or a repayment, barring special circumstances, and it is not deemed that the original obligation is extinguished if the assignment of obligation is transferred.

arrow