logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 부산지방법원 2017.11.14 2017가단23604
대여금
Text

1. The Defendant’s KRW 140,000,000 for the Plaintiff and the following: 12% per annum from June 3, 2017 to November 14, 2017;

Reasons

1. Determination on the cause of the claim

A. The Plaintiff’s assertion that the Plaintiff leased KRW 140,00,000 to the Defendant at a rate of 25% per annum. As such, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the amount of KRW 140,000,000 as loans and the amount of KRW 25% per annum as agreed delay damages from June 3, 2017 to the service date of the original copy of the instant payment order, and the amount of delay damages at a rate of 15% per annum as prescribed by the Act on Special Cases concerning the Promotion, etc. of Legal Proceedings from the following day to the day of full payment

B. Determination 1) The Plaintiff loaned KRW 140,00,000 to the Defendant four times from May 16, 2012 to August 6, 2012 at the rate of 12% per annum on August 6, 2013; and there is no evidence to the effect that the Plaintiff was paid interest or delay damages on the said loan from the Defendant until June 2, 2017, and there is no dispute between the parties (such as the Plaintiff’s assertion, at the rate of 25% per annum).

(2) According to the above facts, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff delay damages at the rate of KRW 140,00,000 and KRW 15% per annum under the Civil Act until November 14, 2017, which is the date of this decision, to the extent that it is reasonable for the Defendant to resist the existence and scope of the obligation to repay interest or delay damages (the Plaintiff accepted the Defendant’s claim for repayment of interest or delay damages and reduced the Plaintiff’s claim, and thus, it is deemed reasonable for the Defendant to resist the scope of the obligation to perform) from June 3, 2017.

Therefore, the plaintiff's assertion is justified within the above scope of recognition.

2. As such, the plaintiff's claim against the defendant is justified within the scope of the above recognition, and the remaining claims are dismissed as it is without merit. It is so decided as per Disposition.

arrow