(영문) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.10 2017가단245341

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) 서울남부지방법원 2018.05.10 2017가단245341

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant: 150,000,000 won to the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from July 1, 2017 to May 10, 2018.

Reasons

1. Determination as to the cause of claim

A. The facts of recognition: (a) on May 27, 2016, the Defendant borrowed KRW 200 million from the Plaintiff; (b) on May 27, 2016, the period of borrowing was from May 27, 2016 to October 31, 2016; and (c) the interest rate on the borrowed amount was 5% per annum at the time of default during the borrowing period.

② On January 20, 2017, the Defendant: (a) KRW 50 million on April 28, 2017; and (b) the same year.

5. 30.5 million won, and the same year.

6. 30.10 billion won shall be repaid in installments, and interest shall be paid at the rate of 5% per annum at the time of default in the loan period.

“The Plaintiff has drawn up a loan certificate to the effect that “....”

③ On April 27, 2017, the Plaintiff received reimbursement of KRW 50 million among them.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, entry of Gap evidence 1 to 4, purport of the whole pleadings

B. According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff the loan amount of KRW 150 million (20 million - 50 million) and delay damages therefor. (2) The Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from November 1, 2016, the day following the expiration of the loan period stated in the loan certificate issued on May 27, 2016. However, in full view of the following facts recognized by the evidence Nos. 1 and 3, it is reasonable to deem that the Defendant is obligated to pay damages for delay from July 1, 2017, when the period of installment agreement expires.

According to the loan certificate dated January 20, 2017, the plaintiff extended the payment period by allowing installment payment to the defendant.

In addition, there was no separate payment agreement on damages for delay caused by the existing delay.

Unlike the loan certificate as of May 27, 2016 when the Plaintiff prepared the above loan certificate, the Plaintiff shall be liable for the failure of the Plaintiff without specifying a separate loan period after the lapse of the 5% interest rate per annum at the time of failure in payment of the loan period, and the 1% (the repayment period).

In light of the purport that “the obligation is not redeemed within the period allowed by the split-off agreement, the next day shall be the same.

유사 판례

-서울서부지방법원 2018.10.18 2017가합40368

-울산지방법원 2019.05.15 2018가합21452

-인천지방법원 2018.12.18 2017가단248819

-청주지방법원충주지원 2017.07.13 2016가단23611

-울산지방법원 2019.02.13 2018가단9394