(영문) 전주지방법원 2015.07.01 2014가단28031

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) 전주지방법원 2015.07.01 2014가단28031

대여금

Text

1. The Defendants are jointly and severally liable to the Plaintiff for 50,000,000 won and the period from April 3, 2006 to August 19, 2014.

Reasons

1. On April 3, 2006, Defendant B Co., Ltd. (hereinafter “Defendant Company”) agreed to pay to the Plaintiff the interest of KRW 50 million on the borrowed principal of KRW 80 million, KRW 180 million, and KRW 100 million on the borrowed principal of KRW 180,000,000, KRW 44.6% per annum, and KRW 44.6% per annum, and KRW 180,000,000 per annum, and KRW 44.6% per annum ( KRW 12 months)/10,000, KRW 800,000 per annum, and KRW 200,000 per annum).

The Plaintiff filed the instant claim against KRW 50 million, while it is deemed that the Plaintiff paid KRW 30 million out of the above borrowed money.

Unless there are special circumstances, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 50 million won per annum from April 3, 2006, which is the date of the loan, to August 19, 2014, which is obviously the date of delivery of a copy of the complaint of this case against the Defendants, and from the next day to the date of full payment, the interest or delay damages calculated at the rate of 20% per annum per annum from the next day to the date of full payment, as the representative director C of the Defendant Company did not dispute between the parties, or according to the purport of the entire statement and pleading as to the statement as to the evidence No. 1. 1.

[Defendant asserted that the Plaintiff received KRW 50 million from the Plaintiff on or around February 1, 2006 under the name of lease deposit. However, even if the assertion was true, as long as the Defendants prepared the loan certificate (Evidence A No. 1) on April 3, 2006, there is no change in the fact that the quasi-loan for consumption was established and the Defendants jointly and severally liable to pay the above amount to the Plaintiff]. 2. The Defendants asserted that the judgment of the Defendants on the defense of repayment did not pay all the debt of the loan of this case.

The whole purport of pleadings shall be made in the entry of evidence No. 1, satise, satise, without dispute, and B.

유사 판례

-서울동부지방법원 2019.10.29 2019가단4619

-서울중앙지방법원 2014.11.14 2014가합33937

-서울중앙지방법원 2016.02.18 2015가합15868

-수원지방법원 2021.01.27 2019가단569739