logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2018.08.21 2017가단8392
대여금
Text

1. The defendant shall pay to the plaintiff KRW 98,578,610 and KRW 57,88,962 among them, per annum from April 1, 2017 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The Plaintiff entered into a loan transaction agreement with the Defendant (hereinafter “instant loan agreement”) and paid each of the loans to the Defendant.

The loan amount on the date of agreement and the interest rate for delay on August 32, 201, 360,000 won on August 32, 201, 200: Not more than 30 days in arrears on October 7, 2012: 8% in arrears: 10% in arrears: more than 90 days in arrears on December 2, 201: 12% in arrears: 32,360,000 won in 12% in arrears: more than 30 days in arrears in arrears on October 7, 2012: 8% in arrears in 30% in arrears: 10% in arrears in 12%: more than 90 days in arrears in arrears in 10%: 12% in :

B. However, the Defendant did not pay the interest payment and did not repay the loan on the maturity date, and on March 31, 2017, the Defendant did not pay the principal amounting to KRW 98,578,610 (the principal amounting to KRW 57,88,962 overdue interest amounting to KRW 40,195,668).

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. According to the above facts of determination as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the agreed delay damages calculated at the rate of 19.8% per annum from April 1, 2017 to the date of full payment of the principal amount of KRW 98,578,610 and KRW 57,88,962.

3. As to the defendant's assertion, the defendant argued that the Dong Housing Co., Ltd. entered into an apartment sale contract with the loan contract and received the loan from the defendant, and that the Dong Housing Co., Ltd. entered into an agreement with the liability under the loan agreement, and that the defendant is not liable.

However, the Defendant is a party to the instant loan agreement, and such circumstance alone cannot avoid liability.

The defendant's above assertion is without merit.

4. The plaintiff's claim for conclusion is reasonable.

arrow