logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 대구지방법원 2017.07.21 2016가단126187
약정금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 16,550,00 for the Plaintiff and 5% per annum from October 28, 2016 to July 21, 2017.

Reasons

1. Facts of recognition;

A. The plaintiff has borrowed money for a long time to the defendant, who is the plaintiff's birth.

B. On May 31, 2013, the Defendant made an agreement to pay KRW 340 million to the Plaintiff, while paying KRW 50 million to the Plaintiff for the accrued interest each month (hereinafter “instant agreement”).

C. After that, the Plaintiff received 7.95 million won out of the instant contract amount from the Defendant.

[Ground of recognition] Facts without dispute, Gap evidence 1, 2, Eul evidence 2, the purport of the whole pleadings

2. Determination

A. According to the above facts of recognition as to the cause of the claim, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 500,000 as of the last day of each month, from June 2013 to June 60, 2013 pursuant to the instant agreement.

In this regard, since June 2013 and June 30, 2017, when the argument in this case was concluded, an agreement amounting to KRW 2,450,000 ( KRW 500,000 x 49 months x 49 months) was reached, the Defendant paid the Plaintiff KRW 7,950,00 (less there is no evidence to support the Defendant’s assertion that the Defendant paid KRW 8,400,00 to the Plaintiff out of the agreed amount of this case, the unpaid amount out of the agreed amount accrued until June 30, 2017 is KRW 1,655,00.

In addition to the above amount, the Plaintiff sought payment of the remaining agreed amount of KRW 35 million among the agreed amount of KRW 60 million. However, according to the agreement of this case, the Defendant is obligated to pay KRW 50 million each month until it reaches the total amount of KRW 60 million. Thus, the Plaintiff’s assertion against this is without merit.

B. As to the Defendant’s assertion, the Defendant received interest exceeding the interest that should have been paid for the amount loaned by the Plaintiff to the Defendant. Accordingly, the Defendant did not have a duty to pay the instant agreed amount to the Plaintiff.

(I think that the agreement of this case was entered into by mistake, but the evidence Nos. 1, 4, and 5 (including paper numbers) is different.

arrow