(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.05.14 2017가단5171203

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 2018.05.14 2017가단5171203

양수금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. Fact 1) A mountain village credit union (hereinafter “the mountain village credit union”)

(2) On January 8, 2004, KRW 25,000,000 on maturity of January 8, 2004, KRW 30,000 on May 20, 2004, and KRW 30,000 on maturity of May 20, 2004, respectively (hereinafter “instant loans”), shall be extended to the Defendant on May 20, 2006, and shall be specified on the date of the loan.

2) On the loan of this case, the court below held that the mortgage was established on the land and housing in the Daegu Dong-gu, Daegu-gu.

The Defendant paid the interest of the instant loan on February 24, 2006, but later the interest was in arrears, thereby losing the benefit of the time limit. On January 10, 2007, the Mutual Village Union received dividends of KRW 14,437,981 from the auction procedure for the said security (hereinafter “instant dividend”) and appropriated it for the repayment of the principal of the loan on January 8, 2004.

3) On June 21, 2013, the court below transferred 10,52,952 won in the balance of the loan as of January 8, 2004 to the Plaintiff, and 30,000,000 won in the balance of the loan as of May 20, 2004. On June 23, 2014, the court below notified the Defendant of the said transfer on June 23, 2014. (4) The sum of the principal and interest of the instant loan calculated as of July 12, 2017 is KRW 80,292,622.

[Reasons for Recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap 1 to 6 evidence, Eul 2 evidence (including branch numbers in case of additional number), the purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the facts found above, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above KRW 80,292,622 and delay damages for the total amount of KRW 40,552,952.

2. Judgment on the defendant's defense

A. The defendant defenses that the claim of this case was extinguished by the prescription, and the plaintiff asserted that the period of prescription was ten years with civil claim, but the defendant paid part of the loan of this case on October 30, 2007 and applied for a payment order before the lapse of ten years thereafter.

(b) judgment;

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2018.04.30 2017가단5095996

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.04.23 2019가단5111410

-제주지방법원 2016.05.03 2016가단232

-서울중앙지방법원 2020.02.12 2019나38856

-서울중앙지방법원 2017.05.31 2016가단119999