(영문) 수원지방법원여주지원 2016.09.22 2016가단53024

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) 수원지방법원여주지원 2016.09.22 2016가단53024

대여금

Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 40 million and the Plaintiff’s annual rate from May 14, 2015 to June 16, 2016.

Reasons

1. The facts that the Plaintiff leased KRW 40 million to the Defendant on November 13, 2014, with the due date fixed on May 13, 2015, may be acknowledged in full view of the purport of the entire pleadings in the evidence No. 1, No. 2, and No. 5.

Thus, the defendant is obligated to pay to the plaintiff 40 million won with the interest of 5% per annum under the Civil Act and 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the next day to the day of full payment, from the day after the day when the copy of the complaint in this case was served on the defendant.

2. The defendant's assertion argues that since the defendant received only 1.5 million won out of the borrowed money of this case, he did not have an obligation to pay the excess amount to the plaintiff.

In light of the fact that the defendant prepared a receipt to the effect that he received KRW 40 million from the plaintiff as stated in Gap evidence No. 2 and delivered it to the plaintiff, as alleged by the defendant, it cannot be deemed that the defendant received KRW 1.5 million, as alleged by the defendant, and even if so, as seen in the above claim cause, the defendant prepared a loan certificate to the effect that the defendant is responsible for paying the amount of KRW 40 million paid by the plaintiff, as seen in the above claim cause, the above argument by the defendant is without merit.

The Defendant asserted to the effect that the Plaintiff cannot claim a loan to the Defendant on the grounds of the above loan certificate or the receipt (Evidence No. 1) as the condition that the Defendant provided the Plaintiff with a security with respect to the land size of 973 square meters in Gyeonggi-gun, Gyeonggi-do, which was owned by the Defendant. Thus, this part of the Defendant’s assertion is without merit, inasmuch as there is no evidence to acknowledge it.

3. The plaintiff's request for the conclusion is reasonable, and it is decided as per Disposition by admitting it.

참조조문

-민법

-소송촉진 등에 관한 특례법

유사 판례

-대전지방법원 2017.05.16 2016나109657

-대구지방법원 김천지원 2018.11.30 2018가합15904

-서울남부지방법원 2015.06.09 2014가단205083

-창원지방법원 2018.06.21 2017나5093

-인천지방법원 2017.05.24 2016나61771