(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2017.04.27 2016가단5238543

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 2017.04.27 2016가단5238543

대여금

Text

1. As to the Plaintiff KRW 120,000,000 and its KRW 70,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 50,000,000.

Reasons

1. The facts below the basis facts do not conflict between the parties or may be found in each entry in Gap evidence 1 to 15 (including branch numbers; hereinafter the same shall apply) by reference to the whole purport of the pleadings. (a)

The plaintiff filed a civil lawsuit against the defendant on October 12, 2005, the Seoul High Court sentenced that "the defendant shall revoke the part against the defendant who ordered payment exceeding the amount of 20% per annum from January 1, 2000 to October 12, 2005, with respect to KRW 70,000,000 among the above 120,000 won and the above 70,000,000 won to the plaintiff, 5% per annum from January 1, 2002 to October 12, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (Seoul High Court Decision 2004Na8379, hereinafter "previous Judgment"), and the above judgment became final and conclusive by a judgment of the Supreme Court on November 10, 206."

B. The Plaintiff filed the instant lawsuit on October 14, 2016 to extend the extinctive prescription period of a claim based on the previous judgment.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, barring any special circumstance, the defendant is obligated to pay 120,000,000 won and 70,000,000 won among them according to the previous judgment finalized against the plaintiff, and 50,000,000 won per annum from January 1, 200 to October 12, 2005, and 5% per annum from January 1, 2002 to October 12, 2005, and 20% per annum from the next day to the day of full payment (hereinafter “the claim of this case”). The lawsuit of this case filed for the purpose of the extension of prescription after the completion of the extinctive prescription after the previous judgment became final and conclusive, there is a benefit of protection of rights.

3. Judgment on the defendant's assertion

A. The defendant asserts that the above promissory note set off the plaintiff's claim of this case with the above promissory note claim, because it has separate promissory note from the above claim.

When there has been a final judgment, it shall be prior to the date of closing argument in the same trial court.

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.23 2017가단5049672

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.06.21 2015가단5394880

-광주지방법원 2016.12.06 2016가단35487

-창원지방법원 2016.04.05 2015가단16883

-창원지방법원 2017.04.13 2016가단3471