logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2015.01.15 2014가합32217
대여금
Text

1. As to KRW 370,00,000 and KRW 70,000 among them, the Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 370,00,000 from February 28, 2008 to June 27, 2014.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. On March 3, 2003, the Plaintiff lent KRW 70,000,00 to the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 1,000,000 per annum (17.14% per annum) and the due date of repayment on September 30, 2003.

B. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff leased KRW 50,000,00 to the Defendant with interest rate of KRW 350,000 per annum (8.4%) and the due date of repayment on February 28, 2009.

C. On December 12, 2008, the Plaintiff lent 250,000,000 won with interest rate of 2,00,000,000 won (per annum 9.6%) to the Defendant on September 30, 2008 (hereinafter the above A and (b) together with the loans of this case).

2. According to the above facts finding as to the cause of claim, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the total amount of KRW 370,00,000 (= KRW 50,000,000 per annum from March 28, 2008 to June 27, 2014, KRW 70,000 per annum from the day after the delivery date of a copy of the complaint of this case to the day after June 27, 2014, KRW 17% per annum, KRW 50,000 per annum, KRW 50,000 per annum from the day after the day when the copy of the complaint of this case was served to the day after June 27, 2014 to the day after the day when the above amount was served to the day when the interest rate of KRW 50,000,000 per annum and interest rate of KRW 250,000 per annum from June 27, 2014 to the day when the above amount was paid.

3. The defendant's assertion is alleged to the effect that each of the loans in this case was invested by the plaintiff for the establishment of a corporation and that the defendant does not have an obligation to repay it. As such, it is not sufficient to recognize it solely with the descriptions of health class, B, and B, and there is no other evidence to recognize it. Therefore, the defendant's assertion is without merit

4. It is so decided as per Disposition by admitting all the plaintiff's claim for conclusion.

arrow