logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.10.11 2017가단108899
대여금
Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 30,000,000 won and each year from August 24, 2017 to October 11, 2017.

Reasons

1. On August 1, 2014, the Plaintiff leased KRW 30,000,00 to Defendant A without fixing the due date for reimbursement, and the Defendant B Co., Ltd (hereinafter “Defendant B”) jointly and severally guaranteed the Plaintiff’s obligation to repay the borrowed amount. There is no dispute between the parties.

According to the above facts, barring any special circumstance, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 30,00,000,000, which is the principal of the above loan, and damages for delay calculated at each rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Civil Act, from August 24, 2017 to October 11, 2017, where it is deemed reasonable for the Defendants to dispute over the existence or scope of the obligation to pay from July 23, 2017, when the original copy of the instant payment order was delivered to the Defendants in light of the date, circumstances, amount, etc. of the loan from July 23, 2017 to the date of the final payment to the Defendants.

Furthermore, the Plaintiff claimed damages for delay from August 1, 2014 to August 23, 2017, which is the date of lease, for the above KRW 30,000,000.

In this case, the loan of this case has no fixed period of time as seen earlier.

Where the repayment period has not been fixed in a monetary loan contract, the lender shall notify the lender of the return by fixing a reasonable period pursuant to Article 603(2) of the Civil Act, and the borrower shall also be liable for delay at the same time as the principal has been repaid until a considerable period has elapsed since the receipt of the peremptory notice.

In the instant case, insofar as the Plaintiff did not assert that the Defendant notified the Defendant of the performance of an obligation before filing the instant lawsuit, the Defendant served the original copy of the instant payment order and passed one month, which is a reasonable period for the performance of an obligation, as seen earlier.

arrow