(영문) 부산지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나47440

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) 부산지방법원 2015.08.13 2014나47440

대여금

Text

1. The part against the defendant in the judgment of the first instance shall be revoked;

2. The plaintiff's claim corresponding to the above revocation part.

Reasons

1. The court's explanation on this part of the basic facts is the same as the corresponding part of the judgment of the court of first instance, and thus, citing this as it is in accordance with the main sentence of Article 420 of the Civil Procedure Act.

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the balance of the principal and interest of loan and damages for delay based on each of the loan agreements in this case, unless there are special circumstances.

3. Judgment on the defendant's defense of extinctive prescription

A. 1) As to the claim 1 of this case, the Defendant asserts that the claim 1 of this case was a commercial bond arising from the commercial activity of Busan2 Savings Bank and the due date for payment has expired on or before December 19, 2006, since the Defendant lost the due date for payment on or before December 19, 2006, the period for payment has already expired by the five-year commercial prescription as stipulated in Article 64 of the Commercial Act. 2) In addition, since there is no dispute between the parties that the claim 1 of this case constitutes commercial bond, the starting point of the extinctive prescription period, namely, whether the Defendant lost the due date for payment, and

A special contract for the loss of the benefit of time may be classified into two parts: (a) a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time under a condition precedent, which naturally causes the loss of the benefit of time and the arrival of the due date, and (b) a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time, which provides that the due date shall arrive after the obligee's act, such as the obligee's notice or claim, after a certain cause occurs; and (c) a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time shall fall under any one of the two. However, in light of the fact that the special contract for the loss of the benefit of time is for the obligee, the special contract for the loss of the benefit of time shall be presumed to be a special contract for the loss of the benefit of time under a condition of suspension, unless

참조조문

-민사소송법 제420조

-상법 제64조

유사 판례

-전주지방법원 2016.11.10 2015나3931

-대법원 2015.09.10 2013다210633

-대법원 2015.04.23 2014다57327

-대법원 2002. 9. 4. 선고 2002다28340 판결

-울산지방법원 2017.10.25 2017가단51503