logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.09.18 2017가단5155485
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants are 24% per annum from May 13, 2016 to the date of full payment with respect to each of the KRW 7,500,000 to Plaintiff B.

Reasons

1. Basic facts

A. Plaintiff A and Plaintiff B are married, and Plaintiff C is the head of Plaintiff A, and Defendants are the parents of the net F.

B. On March 23, 2009, Plaintiff A transferred KRW 1,500,00 to F; KRW 3,000,000 on March 12, 2010; KRW 780,000 on May 18, 2010; KRW 10,000 on November 22, 2010; KRW 3,500,000 on January 26, 201; KRW 7,00,000 on March 9, 201; KRW 15,00,00 on October 22, 201; and KRW 500,000 on October 5, 2013; and KRW 500,00 on May 50, 2013, as indicated in the separate sheet.

C. On August 13, 2012, Plaintiff B lent KRW 15,000,000 to F, with interest rate of KRW 300,000 per month, and due date of reimbursement on August 12, 2013, Plaintiff B received KRW 300,00 per month from F from September 13, 2012 to May 16, 2016.

Plaintiff

C on September 3, 2014, the F loaned KRW 30,000,000 per month interest rate of KRW 600,000 per annum and due date of repayment on September 2, 2015. From October 3, 2014 to May 3, 2016, the F was paid KRW 600,000 per month.

E. The F died on June 7, 2016, and the Defendants jointly inherited each of the inheritance shares of 1/2.

[Ground of recognition] Unsatisfy, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 9 (including each number), the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination of the parties' arguments

A. (1) The Plaintiff’s assertion as to the Plaintiff’s claim that: (a) lent the sum of KRW 119,560,000 to F from March 23, 2009 to October 5, 2013; and (b) was paid KRW 5,950,000 from F during the period from January 19, 201 to January 29, 2014; and (c) accordingly, the Plaintiff asserted that the loan of KRW 44,610,00 remains unpaid.

As to this, the Defendants did not have concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff invested or donated the above money to the Plaintiff’s business, and even if they concluded a loan agreement with the Plaintiff, the Plaintiff’s claim constitutes commercial claims, and all obligations incurred before August 11, 2012, which was five years after the lapse of the extinctive prescription period, were extinguished by the completion of the extinctive prescription period. The Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 81,776,00,000, which was already paid to the Plaintiff before the death.

arrow