(영문) 부산지방법원 2018.10.12 2017나59635

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) 부산지방법원 2018.10.12 2017나59635

대여금

Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

Purport of claim and appeal

1...

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of Gap evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff set 25,00,000 won to C on December 15, 2006 as interest rate of 2.5%, maturity of 2.5% on March 30, 2007, and the defendant jointly and severally guaranteed the above debt of C; the plaintiff on January 9, 2007 at the commission of the plaintiff, C, and the defendant as joint and several surety, with interest rate of 12% per annum on December 15, 2006, delay interest rate of 20% on interest rate of 20% per annum, maturity of 15, 207, and the debt amount of 205,00 won on January 15, 207, according to the notarial deed of debt payment contract (a notary public's debt amount of 205,505,000 won on May 26, 2007).

On January 9, 2007, the agreement is agreed to change the interest rate of 12% per annum and the period of repayment to January 15, 2007, respectively. It is reasonable to view that the defendant has jointly and severally guaranteed the obligation of this case.

Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff interest and delay damages calculated at the rate of 12% per annum from December 16, 2006 to January 15, 2007, the agreed interest rate of 25,000,000 won, and 20% per annum from the next day to the date of full payment.

2. As to the judgment of the defendant's assertion, the defendant alleged that the plaintiff received a written consent for land use from some of the land owners E in close time E in substitution for the repayment of the debt of this case pursuant to the agreement with C, and therefore, the debt of this case should be deemed to have been fully repaid. However, in light of the written evidence No. 3-1 to No. 3, and No. 4-1, it is insufficient to recognize that there was an agreement between the plaintiff and C on the argument of the defendant, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge it. Thus, the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

3. Conclusion.

유사 판례

-부산지방법원 2017.09.26 2017가단4054

-대전지방법원 2017.10.12 2017가단213217

-서울동부지방법원 2008.07.23 2008가합342

-대전지방법원 2019.01.15 2018나11235

-울산지방법원 2017.09.21 2017가단10779