logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2018.11.23 2018가단5000469
대여금
Text

1. Defendant C shall pay to the Plaintiff KRW 48,820,000 and KRW 40,000 among them, from February 8, 2018 to the day of full payment.

Reasons

1. In full view of the purport of the entire pleadings as to claims filed against Defendant C, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 40 million to Defendant C on November 20, 2012 (hereinafter “instant loan”) and the Defendant C agreed to pay the Plaintiff KRW 2,940,000 per annum interest on the said loan, and the Defendant C paid the agreed interest by December 31, 2014.

Therefore, Defendant C, as a debtor, is obligated to pay as the debtor the total amount of KRW 40 million and interest accrued from January 1, 2015 to December 31, 2017 (i.e., KRW 2940,000 per annum x 3 years) and the total amount of KRW 4882,00,000 per annum 15% per annum under the Act on Special Cases Concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from February 8, 2018 to the date of full payment, as requested by the Plaintiff, as to the loan amount of KRW 4882,00 per annum and the loan amount of KRW 40,000,000 per annum.

2. The Plaintiff asserted that Defendant B borrowed the instant loan with Defendant C, but there is no evidence to acknowledge this.

In addition, the Plaintiff borrowed the second floor of the building D located in the Guri-si, Guri-si, in which Defendant B owned the instant loan as Defendant C and C, and operated a restaurant, etc. residing together by the Defendants, and even if Defendant C borrowed the loan, it constitutes a daily house, and thus, Defendant C has the right of representation.

As such, Defendant B and Defendant C are jointly and severally liable to pay the instant loan to the Plaintiff.

It is not sufficient to acknowledge that the loan of this case was borrowed for the purpose of rebuilding and rebuilding the building owned by Defendant B only with the descriptions of evidence Nos. 1 and 2, and otherwise, there is no other evidence to prove that the loan of this case constitutes a daily home life. Therefore, the Plaintiff’s assertion is without merit.

3. Thus, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant C.

arrow