logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.04.03 2014가단5037883
대여금
Text

1. Defendant B and D shall jointly and severally serve as the Plaintiff KRW 100,000,000 and KRW 20% per annum from June 26, 2014 to the full payment date.

Reasons

1. The common factual relations between the parties are: (a) the Plaintiff loaned KRW 10 million to Defendant D on November 26, 2010; (b) KRW 30 million on November 30, 2010; (c) KRW 30,000 on December 8, 2010; (d) KRW 10,000 on December 9, 2010; and (e) KRW 13,100,000 on December 23, 2010; (c) the Defendant Company B (hereinafter “B”) agreed with Defendant D to pay the said KRW 10,000,000; (d) the Plaintiff demanded Defendant D and B to pay the said KRW 100,000,000,000 to Defendant D; or (e) the purport of the present lawsuit may be recognized by taking into account the arguments stated in subparagraphs 2 through 7.

2. Claim against Defendant B and D

A. According to the above facts of recognition, the above Defendants are obligated to pay damages for delay at the rate of 20% per annum from June 26, 2014 to the full payment date, which is the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, to the day after the delivery date of the copy of the complaint in this case, to the Plaintiff, unless there are special circumstances.

On the other hand, the plaintiff sought 5% interest per annum from the date following the lending date to the delivery date of a copy of the complaint, but there is no ground to recognize this, and thus, the plaintiff's claim for this part is not accepted.

B. In order to secure the Plaintiff’s above loan claim, the said Defendants asserted that the said Defendants were not obligated to repay the said loan to the Plaintiff, on the ground that they subrogated to receive KRW 200 million from the Sang-Subdivision Construction Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “F Building”) on January 17, 2012, and transferred the Plaintiff’s loan claim to the Sang-Subdivision Construction, and that they transferred the right to collateral security to the Plaintiff, and thus, the said Defendants did not have any obligation to repay the said loan to the Plaintiff.

Dop. Dop.

arrow