(영문) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.27 2015가단15190

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) 수원지방법원성남지원 2015.11.27 2015가단15190

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants jointly pay 31,200,000 won to the Plaintiff and 27,000,000 won to the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the argument in Gap evidence No. 1 as to the cause of the claim, the plaintiff and defendant Eul agreed on August 28, 2006 to settle the amount loaned to the defendant Eul with 27 million won. On the same day, the defendant Eul prepared a loan certificate stating that "27 million won shall be due and due 27 million won shall be due and 300,000 won shall be payable from April 30, 2007, and from September 5, 2006 to the plaintiff, and the defendant Eul guaranteed the defendant Eul's obligation for the above loan.

Meanwhile, from September 2006 to March 2014, the Plaintiff is a person who received full interest of 300,000 won per month from the Defendants.

Therefore, Defendant B is the primary debtor, and Defendant C, as a guarantor, is jointly obligated to pay to the Plaintiff damages for delay calculated at the rate of 15% per annum as stipulated in the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from April 14, 2015 to the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case, as requested by the Plaintiff, with respect to the amount of 4.2 million won (=3 million won + interest of 300,000 won per month from April 2014 to May 3015) and the amount of 27 million won, whichever is obvious, as requested by the Plaintiff.

2. The Defendants’ defenses by the Defendants agreed to settle the loans amounting to KRW 27 million between the Plaintiff and the Plaintiff on September 5, 2006 by adding the principal and interest to KRW 300,000,000 per month, and thereafter, the Defendants paid KRW 27,000,000 to the Plaintiff in accordance with the above agreement.

However, barring any special circumstance, if the authenticity of a disposal document is recognized, it shall be objectively interpreted that the parties had expressed their intent in accordance with the language and text stated in the disposal document (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 2000Da5336, 5343, Jan. 24, 2003), and the above mentioned contents of the loan certificate shall be deemed to have been stated.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

참조판례

-대법원 2003. 1. 24. 선고 2000다5336, 5343 판결

유사 판례

-대구지방법원김천지원 2016.06.02 2016가단307

-서울남부지방법원 2015.04.08 2014가단39675

-창원지방법원 2017.02.09 2016고단4424

-인천지방법원 2018.07.11 2017나56417

-대구지방법원 서부지원 2017.04.26 2016가단11367