logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원고양지원 2016.07.01 2016가합592
차용금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 300,000,000 as well as 12% per annum from March 5, 2013 to March 4, 2016 to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. There is no dispute between the parties to the judgment as to the cause of claim, and according to the purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and the whole arguments, the plaintiff loaned KRW 300 million to the defendant on May 11, 2010 with interest rate of KRW 400,000 per month, and the plaintiff can recognize the fact that around November 2012, the interest on the above loan was reduced by KRW 300,000 per annum (per annum 12%) to the defendant. Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff the above loan amount of KRW 300,000 per annum from March 5, 2013 to March 4, 2016, when it is evident that the plaintiff was served with the original copy of the instant payment order from the next day to the date of full payment, interest rate of KRW 120,000 per annum or delay damages calculated under the Act on Special Cases Concerning Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings.

2. On April 10, 2012, the defendant made a plea to the effect that the above loan claims against the plaintiff and the above loan claims against the plaintiff against the defendant against the plaintiff set at maturity on June 30, 2012 shall be offset within an equal amount. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge it, except for the case of investigation outside the court, the above documentary evidence shall be present at the date for pleading or preparation procedure and shall be submitted in reality, and the same shall apply to the case where the complaint or preparation document attached with documentary evidence is stated (see Supreme Court Decision 91Da1575 delivered on November 8, 191). Since the defendant attached the written reply of this case, although it was not present on the date for pleading of this case, the above documentary evidence was not presented to the court.

The defendant's defense is without merit without further review.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow