logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2018.02.01 2017가단11711
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the statement in Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 3, it is recognized that on January 18, 2008, the plaintiff set the interest rate of KRW 20,000,000 (hereinafter "the loan of this case") to the defendant at 3% per month without fixing the due date for payment, and lent (hereinafter "the loan of this case").

2. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 20 million won of the loan of this case and 3% of the interest or delay damages equivalent to the interest rate from January 18, 2008 to the day of full payment.

B. The Plaintiff asserts to the effect that the Defendant is obligated to pay interest on KRW 20,000,000 to the Plaintiff at a rate of 49% per annum from February 18, 2008 to January 18, 2017. However, there is no evidence to prove that the aforementioned facts alone are not enough to establish that the Plaintiff agreed to pay interest exceeding 3% per annum (36% per annum) with the Defendant.

Therefore, this part of the plaintiff's assertion is without merit.

3. Judgment on the defense

A. The defendant's defense is proved that the five-year period of extinctive prescription for the loans of this case has expired, and that the above loans have expired by prescription.

B. Determination 1) The claims arising from not only a commercial act committed against both parties, but also a commercial claim subject to the extinctive prescription of five years as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. Such commercial act includes not only the basic commercial activity falling under any of the subparagraphs of Article 46 of the Commercial Act, but also the ancillary commercial activity performed by merchants for their business (see Supreme Court Decision 2006Da1381, Apr. 27, 2006). 2) The following circumstances, which can be seen by comprehensively considering the overall purport of the pleadings as a whole, include not only the claims arising from a commercial act committed by both parties, but also the claims arising from an act falling under a commercial act, as well as the claims arising from an act committed only against one of the parties. The Plaintiff is engaged in

arrow