(영문) 청주지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가단15392

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) 청주지방법원 2015.08.12 2014가단15392

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 65,00,000 as well as the Plaintiff’s KRW 12% per annum from January 15, 2013 to August 12, 2015, and thereafter.

Reasons

1. The fact that the Plaintiff entered into a monetary loan agreement with the Defendant to lend KRW 65 million to the Defendant during July 2012 without setting the due date, and that the said money was leased from July 20, 2012 to August 14, 2012 does not conflict between the parties, and that the Plaintiff received interest from January 14, 2013 is the Plaintiff.

Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay the Plaintiff a loan of KRW 65 million, KRW 12% per annum from January 15, 2013 to August 12, 2015, and KRW 20% per annum from the following day to the date of full payment.

2. The Defendant’s argument as to the Defendant’s assertion is alleged to have transferred the land owned by the Defendant to the Plaintiff in lieu of paying the money for the repayment of the above loan, and the Plaintiff’s land asserted by the Defendant is transferred the ownership of the land from the payment of the claim against C or the collateral of the claim against C, and is not the payment by the Defendant

According to each statement in Eul's Evidence Nos. 2 through 6 (including the number of each branch number if there is no dispute between the parties, or the plaintiff and C respectively, a sales contract is concluded between the plaintiff and C with the purport that C shall sell all of the shares in the name C in the name of 94,240,000 won in the purchase price to the plaintiff on February 18, 2013, and 10,234 square meters in E forest and field No. 10,234 square meters. Accordingly, it is recognized that C has completed the registration of ownership transfer in the plaintiff's future. However, there is no evidence to acknowledge that C shares in each of the above land are owned by the plaintiff, and that the plaintiff transferred the ownership of each of the above shares in accord with the above loan obligation. Thus, the defendant's assertion

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim of this case is reasonable.

참조조문

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-서울중앙지방법원 2019.05.03 2018가단5119295

-인천지방법원부천지원 2015.10.07 2015가단12705

-서울남부지방법원 2015.05.12 2014가단62668

-춘천지방법원원주지원 2015.08.11 2015가단3937

-광주지방법원 2014.07.17 2013가합11630