logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울북부지방법원 2017.05.30 2016가단134003
양수금
Text

1. The Defendants jointly and severally pay to the Plaintiff KRW 31,379,580 and KRW 28,351,376 among them.

Reasons

1. Comprehensively taking account of the overall purport of the arguments in the evidence evidence Nos. 1 through 4, the Postal Savings Bank established and lent 44 million won to the Defendant A on September 2013 at the interest rate of 12.9% per annum, 24% per annum, 24% per annum, and due date of repayment on September 2016, 2016, and the Defendant Company jointly guaranteed the aforementioned obligation. The Postal Savings Bank established on September 11, 2015, transferred the rights incidental thereto to the Plaintiff on September 6, 2015, and notified the Defendants of the transfer thereof on October 6, 2015. As of April 20, 2016, the fact that the principal amount was 28,351,376 won, interest prior to acceptance, 3,184,438 won, interest prior to acceptance, etc., 4,343, and 586 causes.

2. The Defendant asserts that the Plaintiff agreed to reduce the amount of debt to KRW 14 million and that the Defendant paid KRW 4.5 million on April 20, 2016.

First of all, there is no evidence to acknowledge that there has been an agreement to reduce the amount of debts of 14 million won.

Next, since the fact that the defendant company paid 4.5 million won on April 20, 2016 by the defendant company is not a dispute between the parties, this part of the argument is with merit.

Therefore, if the above 4.5 million won is appropriated for interest 7,528,204 won, the defendants' obligations remain as principal 28,351,376 won and interest 3,028,204 won as of April 21, 2016.

3. If so, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 31,379,580 won (=28,351,376 won 3,028,204 won) and 28,351,376 won from April 21, 2016 to the date of full payment, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff 24% interest per annum. Accordingly, the Plaintiff’s claim is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remainder is dismissed as it is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow