(영문) 수원지방법원 2015.07.13 2014가합5367

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) 수원지방법원 2015.07.13 2014가합5367

대여금

Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

2. The costs of lawsuit shall be borne by the Plaintiff.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the arguments as to the cause of the claim Gap, Gap evidence Nos. 6, 12, 13-1, and 2, Eul set the due date of repayment of KRW 135,00,000 on February 12, 1993 and lent it to the defendant on December 15, 1993. The plaintiff paid KRW 150,000 on behalf of the defendant on September 13, 1999 (the principal amount of KRW 135,000,000, interest of KRW 15,000,000 on behalf of the defendant (the principal amount of KRW 135,00,000) and around February 28, 2003, the plaintiff requested the defendant to pay the above payment order of KRW 30,000 from the day after the Seoul District Court was 203 tea532,530,000 to the date of the above payment order of KRW 30,500.

According to the above facts of recognition, the defendant is obligated to pay the plaintiff the indemnity amount of KRW 135,00,000,000 and damages for delay, unless there are special circumstances.

2. The Defendant’s defense regarding the claim for the period of extinctive prescription is a defense that the Plaintiff’s claim for reimbursement was extinguished by extinctive prescription. As seen earlier, it is clear that the instant payment order became final and conclusive on March 30, 2003, and the fact that the Defendant applied for the payment order on January 13, 2014, which was ten years thereafter, is obvious in the record.

Therefore, since the above claim for indemnity has already expired due to the expiration of the extinctive prescription, the defendant's defense is justified.

On June 9, 2004, prior to the expiration of the extinctive prescription period, the Plaintiff filed a complaint against the Defendant as a crime of evading compulsory execution. Around that time, the Plaintiff re-claimed that the statute of limitations was interrupted by approving the Defendant’s debt by withdrawing the complaint as the Defendant permitted to pay the Plaintiff as soon as possible.

According to the statements in Gap evidence Nos. 7 and 10, the plaintiff's liability for indemnity against the defendant.

유사 판례

-서울고등법원 2016.02.02 2015나24548

-부산지방법원 2015.06.26 2014나19971

-수원지방법원 2019.08.27 2019가단527797

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.10.30 2014가단5109955

-광주지방법원순천지원 2019.08.20 2018가단81216