logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.08.22 2016가단252044
대여금 등
Text

1. Defendant A shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 94,962,151 and the interest rate of KRW 19% per annum from January 7, 2016 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On March 26, 2013, the Plaintiff extended a loan of KRW 170,00,000 to Defendant A on March 26, 2016, the loan interest rate of KRW 5.7% (which shall be adjusted to 4.05%) and overdue interest rate of KRW 22% (which shall be adjusted to 19%). 2) The Plaintiff delayed the repayment of the principal and interest of the Defendant A, and the Plaintiff recovered KRW 90,815,379 until January 6, 2016 (which exercised a security right (which shall be adjusted to 14,723,270, overdue interest of KRW 1,054,260, and principal and interest of KRW 75,849) (which shall be adjusted to 4.05%). The Plaintiff paid a loan to Defendant A the principal and interest of KRW 90,815,379,000,00,000).

B. Defendant A’s 1/2 co-ownership 1/2 of the instant apartment. Defendant A and C are co-ownership 1/2, and Defendant B is the external mother of Defendant A. 2) Co-ownership of each of the instant apartment with C after around 2006, Defendant A entered into a sales contract for the instant apartment with C on December 8, 2014 (hereinafter “the instant disposal act”). On December 10, 2014, Defendant A completed the registration of transfer of one-half co-ownership 1/2 of the instant apartment.

3) On the other hand, the Plaintiff filed a lawsuit seeking revocation of the fraudulent act against C, who is the beneficiary, filed an application for provisional injunction against the disposal of the instant apartment. In the lawsuit against the beneficiary, the judgment became final and conclusive on the ground that the instant disposal act constitutes fraudulent act, which was ordered to revoke the disposal act or reinstate the original state. 4) On the other hand, around April 27, 2015, the registration of provisional injunction against the disposal of the instant apartment upon the Plaintiff’s request was completed with respect to the instant apartment around February 23, 2015, and around February 23, 2015, C entered into a mortgage contract with the Defendant as the mortgagee B with the maximum debt amount of the instant apartment, and on March 2, 2015.

arrow