(영문) 광주지방법원 2017.06.30 2017가단6981

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) 광주지방법원 2017.06.30 2017가단6981

대여금 등

Text

1. The Defendant shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,00,000 and the interest rate of KRW 15% per annum from April 22, 2017 to the date of complete payment.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. On June 23, 2015, the Defendant agreed to accept KRW 48,00,000 from the Plaintiff on July 25, 2015, the Defendant agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 48,00,000 to the Plaintiff, with the Defendant’s acquisition of “the obligation for the goods price of KRW 48,00,000 on the CD-style pest control chemicals, Co., Ltd., Ltd., the ververbaex., Ltd., the Plaintiff.”

B. The defendant is the above A.

In the sense of confirming the obligation indicated in the paragraph, on June 23, 2015, the amount of KRW 48,000,000 as to the obligation indicated in the claim was set up and delivered to the Plaintiff with a loan certificate (Evidence A (Evidence A) written by the Defendant, the Plaintiff, and the Plaintiff. In order to secure the obligation of KRW 48,00,000, the registration of collateral security (the maximum amount of the obligation) was completed in the real estate owned by the Defendant, in the name of the Plaintiff.

(A) evidence of heading 2, 3.c.

The defendant did not fully pay the above KRW 48,000,000 even after the due date.

【Reason for Recognition】 Each entry of Evidence Nos. 1 through 4, and the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the above KRW 48,00,000 as well as damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum from April 22, 2017 to the date of full payment, which is the day following the delivery of a copy of the instant complaint, as sought by the Plaintiff after the due date.

B. The defendant asserted that there is no debt even if there is no evidence to acknowledge that the defendant has made a limited property guarantee against the plaintiff, and that there is no need to examine the above argument without any need to examine, since the defendant's voluntary auction procedure was completed and the distribution was completed for the real estate provided by the defendant.

3. In conclusion, the plaintiff's claim of this case is justified and it is so decided as per Disposition.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-수원지방법원성남지원 2017.11.10 2017가단213837

-수원지방법원안양지원 2019.05.24 2019가단101449

-창원지방법원 진주지원 2018.06.29 2016가단35754

-수원지방법원 안양지원 2018.10.17 2018가단4367

-대전지방법원 2016.03.23 2015가단43339