logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 서울서부지방법원 2017.02.02 2016가단5736
대여금
Text

1. The plaintiff's claim against the defendants is dismissed.

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

Reasons

1. According to the overall purport of the evidence Nos. 1 and 2 as to the cause of the claim and the entire pleadings, the Defendants are jointly and severally liable to pay to the Plaintiff KRW 120 million,00,000,000 from the Plaintiff on October 11, 2007, at the interest rate of KRW 12,000,000 per month, and at the interest rate of KRW 5,00 per month, at the interest rate of KRW 30,50 per month, and the period of October 10, 2008, and at the same time, the Defendants failed to pay the above loan upon the expiration of the due date.

2. The defendants' assertion and judgment

A. The defendants transferred to the plaintiff the claims against D and E (hereinafter "D, etc.") with respect to the performance claim, and the defendants asserted that the above claims against the plaintiff were extinguished as the assignment of claims in lieu of repayment.

Therefore, according to the overall purport of evidence Nos. 1 and 2 and arguments, F, the father of D, etc., becomes a person to be supplied with G site in Gyeyang-gu Seoul Metropolitan Government according to the criteria for the relocation measures for the urban development project of Pyeongtaek New Town, which was implemented by E.S., and on June 12, 2006, sold to Defendant B the right to sell the said housing site in KRW 270 million to Defendant B. In order to secure the performance of the above sales contract, on September 26, 2006, the registration of the establishment of a mortgage on the said housing site was completed on September 26, 2006, the maximum debt amount of KRW 350 million, the debtor D, etc., the Defendants as creditors, and the Defendant C transferred the above mortgage to D, etc. on October 11, 2007, and notified it to the Plaintiff on the same day, and on the same day, the fact that the obligor transferred the above mortgage to the Plaintiff by means of additional registration transfer of obligation cannot be viewed as transfer of obligation.

arrow