logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 인천지방법원부천지원 2016.12.21 2016가단14357
대여금반환금
Text

1. The Defendant shall pay Plaintiff A KRW 16,50,00, and KRW 18,00,000 to Plaintiff B, and each of them shall be repaid from June 28, 2016.

Reasons

1. The plaintiffs asserted that they lent money to the defendant, and the defendant claimed that money was invested by the plaintiffs.

2. Determination

A. In full view of the written evidence Nos. 1 and 2 (including additional numbers) and the overall purport of the pleadings in the witness C’s testimony, the Plaintiffs may recognize the fact that the Plaintiffs leased KRW 10 million to the Defendant on October 27, 2014 and KRW 10 million on December 1, 2014, respectively, without the due date for repayment.

Meanwhile, the Plaintiffs recognized that Plaintiff A was paid KRW 3.5 million from the Defendant, including KRW 1.5 million on November 6, 2015, and KRW 2.5 million on January 9, 2016, and that Plaintiff B was paid KRW 2 million on December 4, 2015.

B. Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff A KRW 16.5 million (=20 million-3.5 million), and to Plaintiff B KRW 18 million (=20 million-2 million) and to pay damages for delay calculated by the rate of 15% per annum from June 28, 2016 to June 28, 2016, which is the day following the date the Plaintiffs’ repayment claim became due (the delivery date of a duplicate of the complaint in this case).

The Plaintiffs seek payment of money at a rate of 5% per annum from December 2, 2014 (the day following the date of the final lease) to the date of delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint. However, as seen earlier, the Plaintiffs cannot claim damages for delay from the date following the date of lease, and there is no assertion or proof that there was no specific interest rate agreement. Thus, the Plaintiffs cannot claim additional charges (interest or delay damages) for the leased principal for the period prior to the date of delivery of the duplicate of the instant complaint.

3. The plaintiffs' claim against the defendant is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow