logobeta
본 영문본은 리걸엔진의 AI 번역 엔진으로 번역되었습니다. 수정이 필요한 부분이 있는 경우 피드백 부탁드립니다.
텍스트 조절
arrow
arrow
(영문) 의정부지방법원 2017.05.10 2016나8061
대여금
Text

1. The defendant's appeal is dismissed.

2. The costs of appeal shall be borne by the Defendant.

3. To reduce the purport of the claim in the trial.

Reasons

1. The Plaintiff, as of March 16, 201 and April 22, 2011, filed a claim for a loan of KRW 10,000,000 as of December 3, 201, but was paid by the Defendant, and the said court reduced the amount as stated in the “claim” in this Court.

Facts of recognition

① On March 16, 201, the Plaintiff loaned KRW 10,000 to the Defendant on June 16, 201, interest rate of KRW 12% per annum (payment on June 25), and the due date of payment on June 30, 201, ② on April 22, 2011, the Defendant lent KRW 10,000, interest rate of KRW 12% per annum (payment on April 25, 201), and the due date of payment on April 22, 201 are either disputed between the parties or recognized by the statement in the evidence Nos. 2 and 3 (including the serial number).

B. Therefore, barring any special circumstance, the Defendant is obligated to pay to the Plaintiff the sum of KRW 20,000,000 (=10,000,000) and the agreed interest or delay damages.

On the other hand, the defendant asserts to the effect that at the time of the above loan, the plaintiff prepared and delivered a notarial deed for a loan for consumption to the effect that "it does not raise any objection to compulsory execution" and that the plaintiff's claim does not have any interest in lawsuit.

On the other hand, since a notarial deed only has an executory power and has no res judicata effect, there is a benefit to bring an action for the same claim as that of a notarial deed in order to obtain a judgment which has res judicata effect (see, e.g., Supreme Court Decision 95Da22795, 22801, Mar. 8, 196), the defendant's above assertion is without merit.

2. Determination on the loan claim dated April 27, 201

A. The Plaintiff, on April 27, 201, remitted 15,000,000 won to the F Account Co., Ltd. (IBK Enterprise Bank G), and the fact that the said account was the account that the Plaintiff transferred money to the Defendant as of March 16, 201 and April 22, 2011 is no dispute between the parties.

B. The distinction between the above money and the loan (whether it is a loan or an investment) shall accrue.

arrow