(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단5178067

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) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.06.10 2014가단5178067

양수금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 512,175,606 as well as KRW 100,000 among them, from March 10, 2015 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On April 14, 2004, the Korean bank filed a loan claim lawsuit against the defendant and B, and rendered a judgment on April 14, 2004 that "the defendant and B jointly paid 297,617,189 won to the Bank of Korea and 171,748,242 won per annum from May 19, 193 to the date of full payment, 20,000 won per annum from October 9, 1992 to January 28, 1993; 21% per annum from the next day to March 29, 193; 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment; and 17% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment (Seoul District Court Decision 203Ga38361, May 361, 199)."

B. The claim for the principal and interest of the above judgment was acquired by Korea Ef&A, Korea’s Ef&A special purpose company for Ef&A, DFC loan company, and Plaintiff in order. The assignment of the claim was notified to the Defendant at the time of the above transfer.

C. The balance of the principal and interest of the above judgment at the time of the closure of the instant pleadings is KRW 512,175,606 in total.

(The principal shall be KRW 195,394,721). D.

The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit for the interruption of prescription.

[Reasons for Recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap 1 and 6 evidence, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 20% per annum from March 10, 2015 (the next day after the delivery of the complaint) to the day of full payment as part of the principal amount of KRW 512,175,606 in total and the principal amount of KRW 100,000,000 for the Plaintiff.

[The defendant's special representative asserts that he cannot respond to the plaintiff's claim since he renounced C's inheritance. However, the claim of this case is against "C", not "C", and the above claim is without merit without further review as to the remainder of the claim.

3. Conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2018.02.02 2017나25590

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.06.15 2017나84725

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.28 2014가합564356

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.11.24 2015가단5196246

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.01.13 2015가단5127141