(영문) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.02.03 2016가단7687

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) 대전지방법원 서산지원 2017.02.03 2016가단7687

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Basic facts: (a) The Defendant written and delivered to the Plaintiff, respectively, the letter of loan (Evidence A 1) written on August 11, 2001, 7, and 30,000 won on 30, December 20, 2004, and the letter of loan (Evidence A) written on 12,000,000 won on 8 March 2003, and the letter of loan (Evidence A 2) written on 6 November 2003 on 203. The above letter of loan contains the name and personal information of Nonparty C as a joint and several surety of the Defendant.

② On March 21, 2008, the Plaintiff applied for a payment order against C seeking payment of KRW 57,000,000 for the total amount of the joint and several several liability debt at Incheon District Court Decision 2008Da5685, and was issued a payment order from the above court on March 26, 2008. The above payment order was served to C on April 2, 2008, and became final and conclusive on April 17, 2008.

[Grounds for recognition] The descriptions of Gap evidence Nos. 1 through 3, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. The assertion and judgment

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion (i.e., the Plaintiff’s assertion) lent a total of KRW 57,000,000 to the Defendant in 2001 and 2003 as above.

Since then, upon the defendant's absence, C, a joint guarantor of the above loan debt, promised to repay the above loan debt, and the plaintiff was ordered to pay C as above. At the time, the plaintiff was ordered to pay C, a joint guarantor, the defendant as the principal debtor, was also obligated to pay the loan debt.

The above 57,00,000,000 won, which the Plaintiff claimed as the leased principal, includes interest, and the principal actually borrowed from the Plaintiff is about KRW 10,00,000.

In addition, the plaintiff's above loan claims against the defendant were extinguished by the statute of limitations of ten years after the due date.

B. Prior to the judgment on the amount of money actually lent to the Defendant by the Plaintiff regarding the defense of extinctive prescription, it shall be viewed as to the Defendant’s defense of extinctive prescription.

The extinctive prescription for a surety obligation shall be valid.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원동부지원 2014.09.25 2013가합3421

-부산지방법원 동부지원 2018.05.31 2018가단204062

-의정부지방법원 2015.12.11 2015나9326

-인천지방법원 2019.05.30 2018나61812

-서울중앙지방법원 2015.12.04 2015가단5200961