(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.05.19 2020가단223

beta

본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.

Text

Reasons

텍스트 조절

글꼴

크기(pt)

굵기

줄 간격

자간(%)

(영문) 의정부지방법원 2020.05.19 2020가단223

약정금

Text

1. The defendant shall pay 60 million won to the plaintiff and 12% per annum from January 16, 2020 to the day of complete payment.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of Gap's evidence No. 1 and all pleadings as to the cause of the claim, the defendant promised to repay to the plaintiff KRW 60,000,000 out of the borrowed amount, and for this purpose, on November 16, 2009, a notary public prepared a money loan loan contract No. 11117 on a document No. 1117, 2009 (hereinafter referred to as "the No. 60,000 out of the above 60,000 won by the last day of December 2009, and the defendant agreed to pay KRW 20,000,000 by the last day of January 20, 2010 by the last day of January 1, 2010.

The lawsuit of this case is filed for the extension of the prescription period of the notarial deed of this case and its interest in the lawsuit. As such, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 60 million won and damages for delay calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from January 16, 2020 to the day following the delivery date of the copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the plaintiff.

2. The Defendant asserted that D’s claim was 83,350,000 won based on D’s payment order, Nam-gu District Court Decision 2015Da2435, Namyang-si, 2015Da2435, but D acquired the Plaintiff’s claim, and filed a lawsuit for confirmation of the existence of the obligation under the Jung-gu District Court Decision 2019No3868, Jun. 31, 2005. The Defendant’s non-litigation decision was rendered due to the Defendant’s non-performance

① However, there was no evidence supporting the Defendant’s assertion, and ② even if D acquired the claim against the Defendant from the Plaintiff, it seems that the Plaintiff’s claim (60,000,000) and the Defendant’s claim against D (83,350,000) differ in the amount, and the Defendant also recognized that the Plaintiff had the obligation above the obligation based on the Notarial Deed.

Therefore, the defendant's assertion that D's obligation assumed by the plaintiff is an obligation based on the Notarial Deed of this case.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-의정부지방법원고양지원 2015.08.19 2014가합5852

-수원지방법원평택지원 2013.09.13 2013가단2622

-창원지방법원통영지원 2019.10.15 2019가단21469

-광주지방법원 2020.07.02 2019나59157

-수원지방법원성남지원 2020.07.24 2018가단19728