logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
Text
Reasons
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울중앙지방법원 2019.04.03 2017가단5153625
부당이득금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Defendant lent a total of KRW 30,000,000 to the Plaintiff at an annual interest rate of 30% on April 2012, and thereafter, the Plaintiff and the Defendant concluded a settlement agreement with the Plaintiff to pay only the principal in consideration of the excessive interest.

In addition, the Defendant respectively lent KRW 3,000,000 to the Plaintiff on December 25, 2013, and KRW 2,000,000 around January 18, 2014, and KRW 3,000,000 around January 24, 2014, respectively, without interest agreement.

Therefore, the plaintiff is obligated to pay only a total of KRW 38,00,000 to the defendant.

On July 1, 2016, the Plaintiff paid KRW 90,000,000 to the Defendant for the repayment of the loan, and accordingly, the Defendant acquired KRW 52,00,000,000, the difference between the loan principal and KRW 38,000,000, without any legal cause.

[Y] Even if the Plaintiff is obligated to pay to the Defendant the total amount of KRW 6,951,910 per annum for delay calculated by the rate of 5% per annum for KRW 38,000,000 of the leased principal, the Defendant is obligated to make unjust enrichment of KRW 45,048,090 (i.e., KRW 52,00,000 - KRW 6,951,910). Therefore, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 52,00,000 and delay damages.

2. Determination:

A. It is difficult to acknowledge the fact that the Plaintiff’s each statement in the evidence Nos. 1 through 6 alone exceeds the amount of the Plaintiff’s debt owed to the Defendant at that time, and there is no other evidence to acknowledge otherwise.

B. Rather, in light of the following facts, it is determined that the amount of the loan owed by the Plaintiff to the Defendant on July 1, 2017 exceeds KRW 90,000,000.

1. The following facts may be acknowledged in full view of each description of evidence No. 11-1 and the whole purport of argument No. 11-1 and evidence No. 11-1 of this Act:

① The Defendant has run a credit business under the trade name of “C”.

② The Defendant: (a) around April 27, 2012, KRW 10,000,000 to the Plaintiff; and (b) KRW 20,000,000 around April 30, 2012 to the Plaintiff at each interest rate of KRW 30% per annum.

arrow